In Plato’s Apology, Socrates uses religious appeals, proof by contradictions and various examples to argue for his innocence in court. Socrates is forced to argue for the sake of his life to prove that he is not guilty. In Socrates’ speech, however, he is not apologizing for anything instead, the word comes from the Greek word “apologia,” that translates to a speech made in defense. In this paper, I will argue that Socrates’ decision to stay in Athens and to accept suicide was unethical, because he purposefully antagonized the people who control his fate and this ultimately led to the death penalty.
Socrates begins his argument by stating his whole journey to find out if others have wisdom is because he believes in the Gods. He says, “I shall
…show more content…
call upon the god at Delphi as witness to the existence and nature of my wisdom, if it be such. You know Chaerephon … He went to Delphi at one time and ventured to ask the oracle … if any man was wiser than [Socrates], and the Pythian replied that no one was wiser. Chaerephon is dead, but his brother will testify to you about this” (21a-21b). This arguments’ strengths are that it calls upon a god as evidence and a religious appeal to the audience. Every citizen of Athens believes in the existence of Gods therefore, this appeal works well with his argument, since he is explaining the way he is because Pythian said this was true. No one would question this part of his claim since they believe in Apollo and the oracle’s predictions. The weakness is that Chaerephon is dead, so his evidence can neither be confirmed nor denied. He calls upon Chaerephon’s brother, but that allows for him to potentially lie. Since Socrates himself did not contact the oracle, this information was just said to him by a friend and could be biased or misunderstood. Others could begin to view Socrates as a potential liar and this could raise doubt if what he is saying is the truth. Socrates argument has no foundation and could easily be classified as false which is the first step he takes to aggravate those around him. Furthermore, there is one clear inconsistency with Socrates’ argument that confirms he doesn’t believe in the God’s by his own argument.
“he shows the god’s beliefs are inconsistent but because testing his own beliefs about what the god’s pronouncement means proves to be the operative sense in which the god himself can be “refuted.” So that when Socrates hopes to exhibit through his examinations of the politicians, poets and artisans is just that, since there is someone wiser than Socrates, he has reasons for believing the god means something other than what he appears to first say” (Carvalho 41-42). If Socrates was pious then he would have taken the words of the God Apollo literally instead of trying to prove them wrong. He constantly tries to find someone who is wiser than himself instead of believing it at first. When arguing that he does believe in the Gods this argument only causes more disbelief and shows the crowd that he is lying to them. Socrates gets tangled up in his own argument which causes others to see him as someone who is untruthful, when appealing to a large group of jurors it is unethical to lie to them because if they figure it out then he has no chance of receiving a moderate …show more content…
punishment. In order to further explain himself, Socrates brings up many examples of how he came to believe the god’s oracle’s statement.
He set out to “go to all those who had any reputation for knowledge to examine its meaning. And by the dog, men of Athens – for I must tell you the truth – I experienced something like this: In my investigation in the service of the god I found that those who had the highest reputation were nearly the most deficient, while those who were thought to be inferior were more knowledgeable”(22a). This conclusion of his investigation helps his appeal to the audience men who are less reputable than others, but provokes those of highest reputation such at Meletus, Anytus and Lycon. Socrates is aware that speaking out in this form makes him “unpopular”, but he continues to say it regardless. He is convinced that he is not going to hold back his thoughts and speak the truth to the jury. The issue with these statements is that ultimately the people of greater power and more authority are the people that he is insulting by calling them less wise that the rest of the citizens. Since he acknowledges that what he is doing makes him unpopular then, he knows he in aggravating those who are listening to him but he continues to do regardless. This is worse because now his audience knows it is intentional and he is willingly choosing to behave in this manner. This is clearly unethical because if Socrates is aware that he is aggravating those around him then why would he
continue to aggravate them further in such an important time. I believe that angering others can be the deciding factor in whether Socrates receives a harsh punishment or something easier. If the defendant is trying to survive and not get sentenced to death then they would respect those who currently have more power than him. Thus, if Socrates actually wanted to live and not be sentenced to death he could have easily been more polite when explaining himself instead of willingly irritating others.
Plato, when leading up to identify the first of Socrates’ charges, begins by stating such charges stemmed from the belief that Socrates was being condemned for being a “wise man”. Plato seems to rant on about Socrates’ accusers being “circulators of this rumor, and their hearers are too apt to fancy that speculators of this sort do not believe in the gods.” Plato states (Plato). Continuing, he
“In my investigation in the service of the god I found that those who had the highest reputation were nearly the most deficient, while those who were thought to be inferior were more knowledgeable.” (Socrates, Apology) “Either I do not corrupt the young or, if I do, it is unwillingly,” (Socrates, Apology) “Men of Athens, I honor and love you; but I shall obey God rather than you…” (Socrates, Apology) “I am that gadfly which God has attached to the state, and all day long…arousing and persuading and reproaching…you will not easily find another like me.” (Plato, Apology) “To fear death, gentlemen, is no other than to think oneself wise when one is not, to think one knows what one does not know.” (Socrates, Apology) “I go to die, you go to live. Which is better God only knows.” (Socrates,
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.
Here, I would like to ask you, the men of Athens, firstly, why at all should Socrates have mentioned everything I just said, if he really does not believe in god as some of you accused? Moreover, how dare you to accuse such a man, who serves the gods at all expenses and even risks his life for it? Doesn’t such a man deserve our respect? Furthermore, as we believe in our gods, how dare we put such terrible charges upon the wisest man of Athens, who is sent by the gods to awake us Athenians?
Strepsiades says, “It is said that they have two speeches, the stronger, whatever it may be, and the weaker. One of these speeches, the weaker, wins, they say, although it speaks the more unjust things” (Aristophanes, 111-115). This is very similar to the first charge brought against him in The Apology, for challenging the orthodox beliefs and being “a thinker on things aloft, who has investigated all things under earth, and who makes the weaker speech the stronger” (Plato, 18b). All of Athens held the belief that Socrates questioned things that should not be questioned. But both Socrates and Aristophanes know that a philosopher questions everything, from the mundane to the
Many people have gone through their lives conforming their beliefs and practices for the sake of fitting in or for the happiness of others, but Socrates was not one of these people. In “The Apology” Plato shows Socrates unwillingness to conform through a speech given by Socrates while on trial for supposedly corrupting the youth of Athens and believing in false gods. Although the title of the dialogue was labeled “The Apology,” Socrates’ speech was anything but that, it was a defense of himself and his content along his philosophical journey. At no time during the trial was Socrates willing to change his ways in order to avoid punishment, two reasons being his loyalty to his God and his philosophical way of life.
When asked if there’s anyone in the world who would knowingly choose to be harmed, Meletus replies with “Of course not.”, yet he still insists that Socrates intentionally corrupts the youth (p. 56). Socrates knows that those who are wicked will not only cause harm to strangers, but also will cause harm to those who are close to them (p. 56). Socrates is close to those he teaches and does not want to bring harm to himself (p. 56). Therefore, Socrates would never intentionally corrupt the youth (p.56). Socrates goes on to argue that even if he was unwillingly corrupting the youth of Athens, Meletus’ charges would still hold no real value as it would be an involuntary misdemeanor (p. 56).When somebody unknowingly commits a crime they aren’t summoned to court, they are taken aside and made to see the error of their ways (p. 56). So why was Socrates dragged to court? If someone had tried to enlighten Socrates, and had helped him to see that what he was doing was wrong, then he would have stopped doing that which was unintentional (p. 56). Socrates concludes this part of his argument by stating that no one had tried to enlighten him and by once again questioning why he was brought to court, when court is intended for people who need to be punished, not for people who need to be enlightened (p.
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.
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.
It takes one person to begin expanding a thought, eventually dilating over a city, gaining power through perceived power. This is why Socrates would be able to eventually benefit everyone, those indifferent to philosophy, criminals, and even those who do not like him. Socrates, through his knowledge of self, was able to understand others. He was emotionally intelligent, and this enabled him to live as a “gadfly,” speaking out of curiosity and asking honest questions. For someone who possesses this emotional intelligence, a conversation with Socrates should not have been an issue-people such as Crito, Nicostratus, and Plato who he calls out during his speech. (37) The problem is that many of the citizens of Athens who wanted Socrates dead, lacked that emotional intelligence and thought highly of themselves. So of course they become defensive when Socrates sheds light on the idea that they may be wrong. As someone who cared most about the improvement of the soul, Socrates would have made a constructive role model to the criminals of Athens, as he would go on saying, “virtue is not given by money, but that from virtue comes money and every other good of man…”(35) Socrates was able to benefit everyone alike as he had human wisdom- something that all the Athenians could relate
...t was commanded by the gods. Socrates says that he devoted everything to this quest. He completely ignored his personal affairs to the point where he was completely broke. If he does not believe in the gods that the state believes in, namely, the ancient Greek gods such as Zeus, Hera, Apollo, Hermes, Athena, Ares, Hades, Aphrodite, Poseidon, and many others, then why did he go on a quest appointed by gods that he does not believe in? The only answer possible is that Socrates does believe in the gods of the state and that the accusation is false.
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.
Socrates’s argument that what is holy and what is approved of by the gods are not the same thing is convincing because they both are two different things. Like Socrates stated in EUTHYPHRO, “Is the pious being loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is being loved by the gods?” This connects back to Socrates argument because it states that the gods choose what is pious because they love it or is it pious because it being loved be the gods. The gods are determining the definition of pious instead of letting it be defined. In a way they are changing the definition of it because their peers will look up to them and follow what they have to say. Socrates arguments relate to this because if the gods don’t approve of something
Socrates’ argument was unique in that he tried to convince the jury he was just an average man and not to be feared, but in actuality demonstrated how clever and tenacious he was. He begins with an anecdote of his visit to the Oracle of Delphi, which told him that there was no man smarter than he. He, being as humble as he is, could not take the Oracle’s answer for granted and went about questioning Athenians he felt surpassed his intelligence. However, in questioning politicians, poets, and artisans, he found that they claimed to know of matters they did not know about. Socrates considered this to be a serious flaw, and, as Bill S. Preston, Esq. put it: that “true wisdom consists in knowing that you know nothing.”
Socrates was a philosopher who set out to prove, to the gods, that he wasn't the wisest man. Since he could not afford a "good" Sophist teacher, surely a student of one had to be smarter than he. He decides to converse with the youth of Athens, but concludes that he actually is wiser than everyone he speaks with. He then realizes that their lack of intelligence is the fault of their teachers. Socrates understands that the practice of "sophism" leads to a lack of self-knowledge and moral values. Socrates was later accused of corrupting the youth of Athens and put on trial. In The Apology of Socrates he sta...