Socrates went on trial for allegedly disrespecting the gods and corrupting the youth of Athens, even though he was very religious. It is clear from the Apology that Socrates’ real “crime” was severely embarrassing Wealthy and Important people in the Athens by his habit of questioning them in public places with respect to matters about which they claimed expertise, exposing them as frauds, while providing amusement to the onlookers who gathered to see the supposed experts confounded. Socrates regularly insisted that he was merely a philosophical inquirer after truth asking those who supposedly knew the answers. In this insistence he was only half sincere. He was pursuing the truth, but he knew that his shallow debaters would fall victim to his superior logical and rhetorical skill. He chose the questioning method as an effective way of developing and presenting his own philosophy.
Plato’s account is said to be a verbatim record of Socrates’ defense. Far from corrupting youth by promoting atheism or belief in strange gods, Socrates explains that he philosophizes in obedience to a divine command. Since he has carried out
…show more content…
Why should not a loyal citizen use his primary talent for the benefit of the state? He argues that if he had gone into political life he would have long since “perished.” The struggle for the right in his mind required “a private station and not a public one.” He once held the office of senator and discovered that his efforts at promoting justice were futile and in fact on one occasion nearly cost him his life. He did not fear death, he explains, but realized that neither he “nor any other man” could effectively fight for the right in a political position. He could do Athens the greatest good in a private effort to inquire into virtue and wisdom. The state would profit most from citizens schooled in this sort of inquiry. He closes his defense by leaving the decision to the jury and to
Socrates was a Western Ancient Athenian Greek philosopher who lived from 469 BCE until his death in 399 BCE. He was a student to another philosopher, Sophists, Socrates was different from most Greek philosophers he wanted to get at the truth and find out how one can truly be ‘good’ and moral in life. “To Socrates the soul is identified with the mind; it is the seat of reason and capable of finding the ethical truths, which will restore meaning and value of life” (ADD IN-TEXT CITATION SEMINAR). We continue to use many of Socrates teachings today, such as, ‘The Socratic method’, which is known as asking a question and within these questions you lead it to the answer you wanted to hear, many uses this as a teaching technique and is shown to be highly effective. A great number of Athenians looked up to Socrates and considered him the wise man of Athens, he had many followers whom would ask questions and seek answers. As popularity and following of Socrates grew so did accusations. The charges laid on Socrates by the Athenians were unjust and therefore his death was highly wrong in the eyes of true democracy that Athens was apparently known for. In this paper, I will discuss how Socrates was wrongfully convicted for the corruption of the youth despite having many young followers, introducing new Gods while still being considered an Atheist, and the main reason he was seen as a threat to Athens was that he brought change to the city.
In Plato’s Five Dialogue Apology section, Plato records the actual speech that Socrates delivered in his own defense at the trial. Basically, Socrates is accused to the action of corrupting youth, which he taught norms and value to many people and charge a fee for it (19d6). He is also accused to the action of teaching spiritual things, for not believing in Athens god, and last but not least, Hubris, the question of human wisdom. Socrates, in fact, provides brilliant responses towards all accusations that are charged against him, saying that not one of them is true (19d5). Among these accusations, I will try to prove that Socrates is not guilty against the accusation that is charged to him in terms of the human wisdom, in which Socrates is accused of claiming to be the wisest man of all, a student of all things in the sky and below the earth (18b6).
Socrates was a great thinker and debater dedicated to truth. He spent his golden years walking the streets of Athens in pursuit of wisdom. Socrates lived the destiny that was revealed to him in the Oracle. He created and perfected his own cross-examination technique; we today know it as the Socratic Method. He was thorough and unrelenting. His subjects were often humiliated. Socrates would methodically disprove anyone he thought was wrong. In his eyes, most of the people he interviewed were blind. It did not matter if one was wealthy and influential or if they were young and impressionable. Socrates could question anyone and turn him or her inside out. Unfortunately, he did so without regard to the
Plato’s Apology, is by far one of the most logical yet critical thinking text that I have ever read. Plato describes Socrates, the accused atheist and corrupter of youth in ancient Athens, as a true beacon of ethics and morality. The method that Plato uses to depict Socrates on trial gives us a look back on how the trial of a man who encourages one of sound mind to ask questions even to those who are deemed wise in the eyes of others. Despite facing odds that are stacked highly against him, and this being his first time in court “For I am more than seventy years of age, and this is the first time that I have ever appeared in a court of law, and I am quite a stranger to the ways of the place; and therefore I would have you regard me as if I
The fight to do what is right is not an easy path to traverse, but is one which demands a noble and enduring character. Defending principles of justice with logic and reason in the face of political opposition, is a difficult task to take, but the elusive Socrates boldly undertook this endeavor. In Plato’s Apology, he recalls the daring defence of the principles of truth that Socrates took against all odds. Plato’s recollections, much like the trial of Socrates at the time, has sparked numerous debates amongst scholars who seek to understand the events of the trial more deeply. One such debate has centered on what Socrates meant when he said his speech was nothing more than words spoken at random. Brumbaugh and Oldfather, in their scholarly analysis, contend that Socrates’s speech is riddled with fine polish and organization suggesting that his speech was not random. As will be discussed, there are several examples of organization in Socrates’s speech such as when he provides his jurors with an outline of his speech. Additionally, masterfully woven throughout his defence, Socrates employed many diverse modes of argumentation in a logical and consistent manner lending credence to the notion that he planned his speech beforehand. This skillful use of these modes in Socrates’s argument, all vindicate an intentional design and premeditation. Despite Socrates’s humble assertions
Philosophers seek to better themselves as well as others around them, by self-examination and examining others. Socrates did just this, after the prophetess answered he questioned himself “When I heard the answer, I said to myself, What can the god mean? and what is the interpretation of his riddle? for I know that I have no wisdom, small or great.” Socrates then looked to examine the so called wise men of his time, trying to understand what wisdom was. All the while he was attempting to discern what the god wanted him to do with this wisdom. Socrates was disliked for traveling around and asking the wise men difficult questions. He contributed to the moral goodness by proving these men to not be as smart as they were thought. They had pride in their knowledge, a pride that made them angry at Socrates. However, Socrates was only concerned with helping those around him attain true happiness, teaching them that true virtue is inside oneself. During the end of his trial he does not think that such just pursuits should be punished, for all the good he has done, he believes it only just to be
Socrates was a great philosopher of the Greek world. He was quite an atypical and distinctive person. Being different from all the other philosophers of the land, Socrates was teaching his students ideas totally out of the ordinary from what the society believed was right. As a result, he displeased many people so much that they decided to get rid of him. Socrates was put to trial, accused of spoiling the youth of Athens, tried and sentenced to death. His personal defense is described in works two of his students: Xenophon and Plato. Both of them wrote papers called Apology, which is the Greek word for “defense”. In this essay I used Apology by Plato as the main resource, since it contents a more full account of the trial of Socrates and
Socrates put one’s quest for wisdom and the instruction of others above everything else in life. A simple man both in the way he talked and the wealth he owned, he believed that simplicity in whatever one did was the best way of acquiring knowledge and passing it unto others. He is famous for saying that “the unexplained life is not worth living.” He endeavored therefore to break down the arguments of those who talked with a flowery language and boasted of being experts in given subjects (Rhees 30). His aim was to show that the person making a claim on wisdom and knowledge was in fact a confused one whose clarity about a given subject was far from what they claimed. Socrates, in all his simplicity never advanced any theories of his own
Socrates says if he had attempted to participate in politics he would’ve “died long ago and benefited neither” they city of Athens “nor himself” (31e). If one is to fight for justice, argues Socrates and “survive”, “he must lead a private, not a public life”. (32.a) This philosophy goes against Athens most prized conception of democracy- active participation from all citizens. Socrates calls himself a stranger to the assembly and the court of law because he does not speak in the same manner as the population does (17d). He chooses to speak how he is accustomed to speaking in the courtyard during his examination of his fellow citizens (17d). By rejecting the political rhetoric of the people of Athens and the way they speak in the assembly and in the trials, he is essentially rejecting the entire
Socrates was a very simple man who did not have many material possessions and spoke in a plain, conversational manner. Acknowledging his own ignorance, he engaged in conversations with people claiming to be experts, usually in ethical matters. By asking simple questions, Socrates gradually revealed that these people were in fact very confused and did not actually know anything about the matters about which they claimed to be an expert. Socrates felt that the quest for wisdom and the instruction of others through dialogue and inquiry were the highest aims in life. He felt that "The unexamined life is not worth living." Plato's Apology is the speech Socrates made at his trial. Socrates was charged with not recognizing the
By definition, to corrupt someone means “having a willingness to teach someone to act dishonestly in return for money and personal gain”. Meletus accused Socrates of corrupting the youth of Athens; however Socrates proved throughout his trial that what he wanted more than anything was for everyone to be honest with themselves and others. Socrates merely opened up the eyes of the youth, showing them they have other options of what to believe in and how to view the world. The children that Socrates was accused of corrupting were young and impressionable, Socrates simply spoke out and they listened and were encouraged. Socrates had no youth at the trail to testify against him. Socrates chargers were flawed and he is innocent as far as corrupting the youth goes.
Towards the end of Socrates' defense he states, " They enjoy hearing these being questioned who think they are wise, but are not." Socrates is telling the jury that he has been honest with them and that he does not corrupt the youth, the youth and others follow him around for the reason in quotations. This was Socrates' defense.
The use of Socrates’ inquiry in the Meno is a perfect example to show how Socrates pushed his listeners to question their own knowledge. Socrates never told Meno his definitions were wrong and his own were right, rather continued to question Meno’s conclusions to show him that he did not know the true meaning of virtue. The people of Athens were unable to accept the fact that many of them were ignorant on topics such as the definition of virtue, whereas Socrates himself was able to admit it. The Athenians disguised Socrates’ true desire to teach people for corruption and impiety because they believed he was trying to humiliate them. Although the people of Athens were blind of Socrates’ true intentions, his method of inquiry did in fact benefit the city of Athens. Socrates’ methods eliminated ignorance and increased proper knowledge on important things such as virtue and knowledge within the city of Athens, which is what he meant when he said he was “a gift of the gods to the city of Athens.”
In 399 B.C.E. Athens, Socrates, one of the greatest axial philosophers, was charged with impiety and corruption of the youth by Meletus, Lycon, and Anytus. Socrates was convicted of these accusations and executed. Socrates was one of many great thinkers in Athens, which was experiencing a Golden age as the most progressive and learned democracy in Greece. Strangely, Athens executed Socrates for his speech, which contrasted with Athenian democratic values. Moreover, Socrates was seen as annoying to authorities of the time, but never considered threatening enough to receive punishment to Athens before this. In order for Socrates to be executed, Athens needed to have undergone a deep shift that changed perceptions of Socrates from a gadfly to a danger to society. As a result of a crippling defeat by Sparta in the Peloponnesian Wars, Athens was paranoid of threats to its democracy, Athenian citizens were looking for a scapegoat for their recent troubles, and Socrates made enemies out of powerful politicians and thinkers due to his irritating Socratic method and uncustomary beliefs, therefore, he was easy to blame and execute.
In ancient Greece, being a philosopher carried various implications, several of which were unfavorable. In a time when natural philosophers were accused for being non-believers in the traditional deities and sophists were defamed for selling their intellectual services for money, Socrates fit in neither category. Nonetheless, the moment Socrates decided to become an enquirer, or a philosopher of human nature, he was chastised. His enemies, men he had either insulted or embarrassed, sought vengeance and in their process to do so, tried to define him. Accused of being an atheist and a corruptor of the youth, Socrates was viewed harshly by the society he lived in, but, despite this, his true nature revealed itself through his words and Plato’s dialogues. His prosecutors aimed to vilify his name and profession, and ultimately sentence him to death, a goal they eventually completed, but the accusations were not definitive of who he was. Socrates was a philosopher, first and foremost, attempting to find the reasons for various phenomenon, but he was also a self-professed prophet, indirectly given a prophecy from the gods, determined to use dialectic to bring about self-awareness in his fellow citizens. His ideologies, thus, became the building blocks for the philosophers of the generations succeeding him.