Self-Knowledge And Virtue In The Apology By Plato

Socrates, a poor 70 year-old man, has been accused of corrupting the youth, not believing in the gods of the city, and for paying a fee for his teachings. His main accuser was Meletus, but both Anytus and Lycon supported Meletus’ accusations. Socrates fought against the three accusations in a dignified manner. First he discussed that he was not corrupting the youth on purpose, but if they were become corrupted by him on accident that he will stop. Additionally, he mentions that he is not asking for money for his teachings and that the youth have only become interested in his actions and have decided to follow him. He states that he only has the desire to find someone who is wiser than him because he does not believe what an oracle from Delphi

The Apology and Phaedo by Plato are two different books describing what is like to be a philosopher per Socrates believes. These two books take place in two different scenarios in Socrates’ life, The Apology takes place in a court room where Socrates is to defend himself from false charges brought to him by Meletus who is acting as the prosecutor. Phaedo, on the other hand, takes place in a prison cell post judgment on the day of Socrates execution. Hence, The Apology and Phaedo appeared to display different philosophies: The Apology, Plato presented Socrates as wise for he knows that he knows nothing, hence he is seeking wisdom by questioning those who think they know more or something, just to find that they don’t know anything, therefore Socrates makes it his duty to make them look ignorant/stupid. Phaedo, Socrates focuses primarily on death and the immortality of the soul, hence he is seeking knowledge by devoting his final hours picking the minds of his friends to explain the role of a philosopher, which is preparing for death. Consequently, these two views are really the same, yet presented differently by Socrates, for in one he is defending his freedom and life using philosophy, hence he has only done what the Gods expected of him. From the other view, he resigned to his fate, for as a philosopher, he knows his soul will finally become liberated from the evils and limitations of the body to come to its divine state.

The law only serves to punish those that willfully did wrong and that those do not should only be educated in what is right. In his first defense Socrates claims that It cannot be possible for one to willingly corrupt his followers for it would eventually be equivalent to bringing harm onto oneself and no man seeks out self harm. Once Socrates established that he was not willingly corrupting the young, it becomes evident that either Socrates is not corrupting the young or that he is not intentionally corrupting them, both cases would make Socrates innocent in the eyes of the law (Plato, Apology 25d-26a). Although this argument presented by Socrates is sufficient, the defense that Xenophon claims that Socrates presented sheds light on a difference line of reasoning and attitude that Socrates possessed during the trial. Socrates knew that men of virtue were inclined to follow him, he notes to Meletus “Doesn’t the fact that many of my fellow citizens who aspire to virtue, and many foreigners as well, choose to associate with me over anyone else strike you as further proof that my efforts haven’t been in vain?” (Xenophon, Apology 17). By noting that individuals that strive for virtue associate with him then conversely Socrates and his teachings must also be virtuous. If Socrates teaching are virtuous, as it has become apparent, then he cannot be corrupting the minds of young men. It is important to note that when Socrates made his first defense he willingly portrays himself in a humble light. While in his second defense he elevates himself to a position of moral superiority by claiming his virtue. However, regardless of how Socrates approached his defense, after reviewing both sides it becomes clear that the correct decisions would be to acquit

In this reading Plato tells the story of Socrates and his trial which ultimately lead to his death sentence. Socrates was a 70 year old man at peace with his own mortality yet willing to face his accusers with an almost definite possibility of death to maintain his own integrity and beliefs and morality. He fully understood from the beginning of his trial what the sentence handed down would be yet on a level of honor and courage not seen in abundance in modern society he maintained his stance and delivered a compelling and convincing argument. He openly stated that he knew his actions had offended Meletus and

In my opinion I think that Socrates was not rightly convicted. As he mentions: “The law does not require you to bring people to court for such unwilling wrongdoings, but to get hold of them privately, to instruct them and exhort them; for clearly, if I learn better, I shall cease to do what I am doing unwillingly” (Apology 30). I completely agree with Socrates. When someone does something wrong, the best way to help them is by instructing them. They should learn from their mistakes and later on make moral decisions. Sometimes people do not notice things that they might be doing wrong, they just think in themselves and what they want to achieve. If no one tells them that what they are doing is wrong, they would never be able to change it. These people should have someone else to instruct them when necessary. Most of the time people are not aware of the immoral things they do and just concentrates on the good and positive things the perform through their lives. The law just requires to bring to court people who are in need of punishment rather than those who are in need of

The Trial and Death of Socrates recounts his attempt to persuade the jury that he has committed no wrongdoing. Socrates has been charged with creating new gods, not acknowledging existing gods recognized by the state, and negatively influencing Athens’s youth. While the narrative is titled “The Apology,” that word poorly describes Socrates’s argument for his innocence. In fact, he continuously makes many statements which may lead people to believe that he is above the law itself. Throughout his plea, Socrates refuses to believe that he is at fault while confidently speaking quite highly of himself. Most people on trial create arguments that would appeal to the jury, but not Socrates. He firmly stands by his beliefs even though they lead him

Socrates suggested that if he were to get what he deserved, he should be honored with a great meal for being of such service to the state. He rejected the sentences of prison or exile, offering instead to pay a fine. When the jury rejected his suggestions and sentenced him to death, Socrates accepted the verdict and said that no one but the gods know what happens after death and so it would be foolish to fear what one does not know. He also warned the people who voted against him that by silencing him rather than listening to him, they have harmed themselves much more than they have harmed him.

One of Plato’s dialogues, The Apology, is the story—not a direct transcript, but Plato’s rendering—of Socrates’ trial by the state, in which Socrates is the only voice. His accusers are Meletus, a poet, Anytus, a laborer and a politician, and Lycon, an orator. As aforementioned, Socrates is seen as a threat by the state and has a reputation in Athens as a result of his different ways of thinking and his claiming to be the wisest person in Athens. Two parts of the Socratic creed are revealed even before any accusations can be made against Socrates. The oracle in Delphi had told Socrates that he was the wisest (Redfield par. 20e), and Socrates uses this fact in an attempt to defend his reputation.

Socrates begins by discussing why his previous accusers accused him of what he did. “I will try to show you what has caused this reputation and slander...is none other than a certain kind of wisdom” (20d, 23a). His next point on human wisdom, is that it is not very valuable; “That one of you, O human beings, is wisest who, like Socrates, has become cognizant that in truth he is worth nothing with respect to wisdom” (23b). Socrates still believes however, that thinking about and examining wisdom is extremely important to live a fulfilling life.

Early in the Apology, Socrates argues that the charges of Meletus are not only false, but have led to the rise of prejudice against him, and he demonstrates this through what he considers his own reflection on the charges against him. Socrates suggests the indictment against him should read: “Socrates is guilty of engaging in inquiries into things beneath the earth and in the heaven, of making the weaker argument appear the stronger, and of teaching others the same things”. Socrates suggests that the breadth of the indictment against him could encompass the premises supported by many men, and that it is only through the prejudice against him, the belief in his wisdom purported by some, and the sense that Socrates has influenced men that has resulted in the charges, not through the true belief that Socrates has taken actions against the State.

In this paper I will discuss how Plato 's Apology and Phaedo have difference ideas of what it means to be a philosopher. I will explain how in the Apology, the philosopher is wise in how he/she understand that they are wise because they know that they don 't know, and in Phadeo the philosopher knowledgable and are concern in gaining more knowledge.

1At his trial Socrates was formally charged with two important crimes being impiety and corrupting the youth with an additional one relating to his questioning of many and their self-proclaimed wisdom. During his trail Socrates would go on to defend himself against these charges by addressing his accusations and also interrogate one of his accusers Meletus. Much of Socrates’ defense was focused on addressing each charge individually beginning with past ones than moving on to present charges amid the same time his accuser would take the stand. Socrates, attempting to defend himself, while succeeding to some level by providing sincere reasoning, however, here and there would speak to the Athenian audience with suggestive rewards they should give

Socrates put himself in the jury’s shoes by questioning his own behavior before the trial. He understood that they may be dumbfounded how his reputation could spiral down so quickly. Socrates still insisted; even after empathizing with the jury, that he had gained this reputation by falling victim of wisdom. Plato continued on with his remarks calling this wisdom “human wisdom”. Soon Socrates warned that he was going

Socrates spent the rest of his life wandering Athens. Although many people considered him to be a teacher, he rejected that label because these teachers (sophists) taught others how to use language skillfully through reddrick in order to manipulate others. Socrates thought otherwise and rejected their teachings because he thought language was used to discover what is true and knowledgeable. In the Apology, he mentions that he believes that he has not taught anything because he simply does not know anything. Socrates explains himself why people seem to dislike him and explains that it is because people are angered from the wisdom Socrates has. The Oracle Delphi once said that no one is wiser than Socrates. Of course Socrates was stunned because, as aforementioned, he does not know anything. He wanted to find out if someone truly had wisdom so he tested the wisdom of artisans, poets, sophists, politicians, and could not come up with anything because their reasons were not justified. He came with the conclusion that humans are “foolish little insects.” He also

The question of willingness to die for one’s beliefs is something that most humans wrestle with. Socrates was no different. He was convicted so deeply in the statement, “the unexamined life is not worth living,” that he was willing to put into action what he was speaking; to die for it. He not only spoke this statement but lived it by example. By being sentenced to death, Socrates was testing the weight of his own spoken conviction. He knew that if he pleaded guilty and betrayed what he had already examined and believed in his soul, his life would not be worth continuing. When Socrates says, “The unexamined life is not worth living,” (CITE) he is emphasizing the value in thinking deeply of personal beliefs and convictions because those are what define people as individuals.