The Apology of Socrates Essay examples

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

In his defense, Socrates claims over and again that he is innocent and is not at all wise, “…for I know that I have no wisdom, small or great.” Throughout the rest of his oration he seems to act the opposite as if he is better than every man, and later he even claims that, “At any rate, the world has decided that Socrates is in some way superior to other

Plato’s “Defense of Socrates” follows the trial of Socrates for charges of corruption of the youth. His accuser, Meletus, claims he is doing so by teaching the youth of Athens of a separate spirituality from that which was widely accepted.

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.

Socrates, knowing that he needed ethos in any statement that the jury themselves had not witnessed, used the credibility of other well-respected individuals within the Athenian community. While describing what he does that makes so may dislike him, Socrates told the jury that Chairephon, a man who was a friend of most people in the jury, asked the oracle of a god if there was anyone wiser that Socrates. The answer was that no one on earth was wiser than him, so Socrates set out to find someone wiser than himself. Because Chairephon was dead he could not be a witness, but Socrates stated that Chairephon’s brother would testify to this story, thus validating

Socrates implies that the true nature of this charge was, in fact, vengeance carried out on the part of the power-holders of the Athenian society; the politicians, the poets, the manual artisans.  Socrates, unwillingly made fools out of these people by exposing their speeches as mere rhetoric than actual wisdom and knowledge.  These men who were seen as the wisest and the most enlightened, but in fact, by believing that they are most knowledgeble is what keeps them from real wisdom.  Socrates is also being charged with attacking the Athenian society by corrupting its citizens, mainly the youth.  He defends himself by claiming that either Meletus beleives that Socrates does not corrupt the youth or he does corrupt them but involuntarily.  Socrates bring to light that "if I corrupt them voluntarily, the law does not call upon you to procecute me for an error which is involuntary, but to take me aside privately and reprove and educate me" (33).  Socrates goes on further to say

In this excerpt of Plato’s Apology, Socrates question method, the Socratic Method, is shown. Socrates presents Meletus with a thesis which Meletus agrees with, and then Socrates proves it wrong. By using the case of horses, Socrates proves to Meletus that like all other citizens of Athens, Socrates is a good influence on the youth. Socrates, yet again possessing the truth in this situation, demonstrates his wisdom through his skillful speech that “others fear.”

After reading “The Apology,” I decided to respond about how Socrates used the Socratic Method during his trial. Socrates, using this method, crafted a personal defense against the allegations laid upon him and, at the same time, Socrates led Miletus to trap himself as a part of that defense. I believe that Socrates’ decision to defend himself in this manner brings up some important considerations. First, Socrates using the Socratic Method as an integral part of his defense not only unraveled most of Miletus’ support, but Socrates was able to showcase his wisdom to the people of the court to show them what kind of person Socrates was when he acted as he usual did. Secondly, Socrates, through his attack on Miletus showed the people of the court the potential threat that Socrates could have been this entire time had that been his focus. Both of these considerations are possible only because Socrates’ used his method of questioning to craft a defense for himself.

Socrates opened his case by asking the jury to listen to him openly and to pardon him if he went into his usual style of speaking. His accusers had already spoken against him in the flowery manner common in courts of law. Socrates said that his accusers' speeches contained great refinement and skill, and he lacked the ability to speak so well. However, he said that he would speak the truth while his opponents lied. Socrates also stated that while his accusers’ speeches were

Socrates has shown he has no fear in being accused of crimes he knows he didn’t do. He gives explanation by saying that if you are accused of mothing you didn’t do they accusers will be the ones in pain from the loss and wrong doing. He goes about explaining how he has never charged or tried to seek material good for his teachings, he only wanted to help people through their own wisdom. While in court they go through all of his accusations and Socrates has no struggle disproving his guilt and proving them wrong. He explains that the accusers offer no witnesses to the charge and even if they charged him he could not pay for it because he is poor (28). Socrates is a selfless man as seem through his actions that is only trying to prove his knowledge through wisdom and teachings. While in court Socrates was accused of not believing in the Gods of Athens. He goes on to explain that he does believe in the gods, he states that one cannot teach spiritual things without believing in the Gods themselves and cherishing their worth. He backs this up with the statement that

The third charge that was made against Socrates was that he went against the gods. One of the accusers named Meletus alternates between accusing Socrates that he is atheist and accusing him of having belief in new gods rather than the old gods. Now you tell me what you think of this. First

Socrates tells a story in an attempt to explain this. It starts with a man named Chaerephon, a well respected citizen of Athens, who had died recently. Chaerephon goes to the Oracle at Delphi and "he asked if there was anyone wiser than" Socrates. (Apology, Plato, Philosophic Classics, page 23) The Oracle, of course, says that there is no man wiser than Socrates. When Socrates heard of what the Oracle said, he begins to wonder what riddle is hidden in those words. He knows that he is not a wise man, so he knows that he cannot be the wisest of men. Not knowing what then Oracle truly meant, he goes out to investigate this. He went to a man who was reputed to be very wise. He thought that he would find a man who is wiser than himself, and thus point out to the Oracle its mistake. Socrates finds that this man actually knows nothing that is worth knowing. When Socrates tries to point this out to the man, he and the bystanders become angry. Socrates says that he is wiser than this man because, while they both know nothing, Socrates realizes this. The other man thinks he knows things that he does not, while Socrates knows that he knows nothing. Socrates claims that he has done this with many men, and that each time, he came to the same result: the man knows nothing and thinks he knows everything, and Socrates has made the man angry. In continuing to do this, Socrates made many men angry, and that anger turned into

In lines 31b Socrates stated, “That I am the kind of person to be a gift of the god to the city” as a defense towards the accusations that he was corrupting the youth of Athens. The people of Athens believed that Socrates’ methods of teaching were malicious and even thought he was

The other possibility is that he does not corrupt them at all. Third, in frustration, Meletos accuses Socrates of being nonbeliever, at the same time he claims Socrates teaches new gods. Thus, Meletos contradicts himself. Socrates argues that fear of death is foolish, because it is not known if death is a good or an evil, thus there is no reason to fear death. Socrates claims that his mission is in service to God.

A critical view of the dialogue reveals a lot in the manner in which Socrates and his accusers speak. Indeed, Socrates makes a plain argument while his accusers speak persuasive language.