Socrates Rhetorical Analysis

Socrates appeared to almost respond with humor or at the very least with a dry retort, certainly not apologizing for his positions. He calls the acquisitions slander, which seems to me that he uses an offensive rhetorical position, rather than a purely defensive or cowering posture. Socrates tells his audience, the accusers that Aristophanes is a place of comedy, again a rather offensive position to take against these accusers. This is particularly compelling in light of the potential for extreme punishment. Socrates underscores how little he thinks of these charges by suggesting that his sentence be free meals in the city center and one silver coin. Again confounding in light of the prosecution's offer of death as the sentence.

Socrates

points out that he is the wisest of the wise since he alone knows he does not know. Regarding impiety he plead a form of theological ignorance; pointing out that he did not have the insight of the gods regarding what goes on above or below the earth. In this regard his rhetorical tool seems to be that of stating the obvious, which in one manner puts him in control of the discourse.
Socrates discourse to the accusers almost seems to suggest that Socrates is committing a form of suicide. Instead of taking the charges seriously he seems to make light of the chargers and the accusers and in doing so invites a death sentence.
While the old charges included some reference to his special knowledge of things in heaven (above the earth) and "hades" (below the earth), the new charges against Socrates were simply that he was impious and a corruptor of youth.
Socrates states his arguments and builds an overwhelming rhetorical evidence that he arguments are true or at the very least farm or persuasive than the prosecution. Socrates uses examples to make his points. On the corruption of youth, he uses horses and horse training as an analogy, saying what is true for horses must be true for people. Socrates says that those who train horses make them better but those that use horses corrupt them. He goes on to say that there are fewer trainers (teachers) than owners (users); therefore, it is the users that are the corruptors not the trainers. Socrates goes further to say that youth emulate him but don't do so because he has taught them.
The next argument Socrates seems to make is that the people of Athens that don't care for or about youth are in fact the ones corrupting the youth.

Socrates this time uses Meletos instead of horses as his rhetorical foil. Socrates points out that Meletos never paid attention to the youth. He invites the Meletos to tell the court what exactly Socrates did to corrupt the youth making the point that someone who has little care for youth cannot charge another with neglect thus Meletos is contradicting himself and his charges are therefore baseless.

Finally Socrates says that no matter which way Meletos tries to accuse him the claims are without merit. If Socrates is corrupting youth is not intentional, therefore, he cannot be charged with committing an overt crime. "Either I have not a bad influence, or it is unintentional; so in either case what you (Meletos) claim is false." Since anything Socrates may have done to the youth was purely without intention and therefore totally innocent.

It appears that Socrates builds his arguments one upon another to a conclusion based on a logical progression of the arguments: Philosophers do not corrupt youth, Meletos contradicts himself, corruption by omission is not a crime, since Socrates is a Philosopher and not a teacher of youth he did not intend to corrupt youth and was falsely accused, and Socrates is not guilty and should not be

punished.
In the end the big question for me is there a larger point to this than a retelling of Socrates trial. Why was he tried really? Was he tried for being an atheist and corrupting youth? Or was there animosity between Meletos and Socrates? Socrates was tried for not believing in the gods of Athens, however he points out that he is more religious than anyone.
While Socrates explains the importance of self-knowledge he also seems to point out that his greatest intellect is that he knows that he does not know everything. He seems to point out that self-knowledge is more important than any other kind of knowledge. If "the unexamined is not worth living" then self-knowledge is the most important kind of knowledge.
Finally, there must be historic context to give further understanding to the Dialogues and the trial of Socrates. In the 4th Century, BC, there were wars between the Greek City-States. Athens and Sparta were at war and the State took control of people's lives. As young boys became the wards of the state from an early age fear, anxiety and depression may be the dominant emotions of the time. In the tension of war, the domination of the State was conflicted by the emergence of new philosophic thought. The philosophers were often creating more confusion and asking more questions than answering. Some philosophers argued that there was not a logical reason for a moral life. The Teacher Socrates seems to try and restore some faith in these new ideas. However, antagonists came to power and eventually accused Socrates of polluting the minds of the youth and turning his back on the gods. Sadly, Socrates was put to death for his convictions and did not get to live out his examined life.