Critical Analysis of Plato’s Apology 40c-42a

Philosophy is defined as the ultimate quest to help humans seek answers to questions that orbit knowledge, reality and existence. Philosophers begin their study of knowledge by asking questions they may or may not have an answer to. One famous philosopher, Socrates, utilizes this process to question his understanding on the concepts he had already attained knowledge for. At one point during his life, Socrates is proclaimed to be the wisest man alive by the Oracle of Delphi. Upon being declared the wisest man alive, Socrates begins to question everything he thought he knew.

In the retelling of his trial by his associate, Plato, entitled “The Apology”; Socrates claims in his defense that he only wishes to do good for the polis. I believe that Socrates was innocent of the accusations that were made against him, but he possessed contempt for the court and displayed that in his conceitedness and these actions led to his death.

“it is time for me to die, and for you to live- though which of us has the better destiny is unclear to everyone, save only to God.” So with this statement, Socrates seems to contradict himself and admits that nobody really knows whether it is better to be alive than dead. This statement also clearly identifies the fact that he believes in a supreme being so there is no way he could believe that there is no life after death. He in fact several times speaks about how his obedience to his God is of the utmost importance. Essentially this whole argument about death with no after life being a favorable outcome is completely preposterous. He would be abandoning his family, friends and his principles further contradicting

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.

Plato’s Apology is the story of the trial of Socrates, the charges brought against him and his maintaining of his own innocence throughout the process. At the onset of the trial, Socrates appears to challenging the charges, which included corrupting the youth, challenging belief in the gods that were accepted and reveled by the State, and introducing a new religious focus, but also belittles his own significance and suggesting that he will not attempt to disprove that he participated in the actions maintained by the court. In essence, Socrates appears almost self-effacing, and his defense surprises even his accuser, Meletus. But by the end of the Apology, Socrates becomes almost a different person,

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

His statement clarifies his reasons for not escaping death. Therefore, Socrates was not clearly right in escaping and would have violated his principles.

The Apology was written by Plato as an account of the defense that Socrates presented during the trial in which he was condemned to death. Socrates gave this apologia, or defense of one’s actions, against the accusations that he did not believe in any gods, and that he was corrupting the young men of Athens. Not being as skillful in the art of oratory as his accusers, Socrates admitted that he would, as plainly as possible, present only truthful and logical refutes to the accusations that were against him. Being wise in the way of rhetoric, Socrates used pathos, ethos, and logos to argue in his defense. Although ultimately executed, Socrates masterfully defended himself in court and proved that he was a man of both virtue and wisdom.

In the year 399 B.C., Socrates was put to trial for impiety and corrupting the youth. During the trial, Socrates had to deliver his defense speech, called an apology, which derives from the Greek word apologia which means to ‘speak in one’s defense’. There are two accounts of Socrates’ apology; Plato’s and Xenophon’s. The main difference between the two accounts is that Plato was present during the trail and paraphrased what was said. Xenophon, on the other hand, was not present but instead based his on Hermogenes’ reports before, during, and after the trail. Although both show Socrates to be incredibly pious, just, and accepting of death, they have many differences.

The portrayal of Socrates, through the book “the trial and death of Socrates” is one that has created a fairly controversial character in Western history. In many ways, Socrates changed the idea of common philosophy in ancient Greece; he transformed their view on philosophy from a study of why the way things are, into a consideration man. Specifically, he analyzed the virtue and health of the human soul. Along side commending Socrates for his strong beliefs, and having the courage to stand by those convictions, Socrates can be commended for many other desirable characteristics. Some of those can include being the first martyr to die for his philosophical beliefs and having the courage to challenge indoctrinated cultural norms is part of

In the Apology Socrates is a very simple man he is Plato’s favorite character based on his personality of appearance. To convey his ideas about honesty and rightness. The peculiar of a method applied in Apology is about an argument which Socrates used to expressed by Plato in The Apology (Steven 29p) uses to defend himself in the course of a court-martial. Plato’s Apology is an example of how Socrates speech makes at the trial in which he is charged with not recognizing the gods recognized by the city, The complaint of Socrates is based on fear people of the man’s thinking which inspires the youth by original ideas and exposure of the ignorance and corruption in the unawareness and dishonesty in the upper circles of the state. Socrates

In Plato’s The Republic and The Apology, the topic of justice is examined from multiple angles in an attempt to discover what justice is, as well as why living a just life is desirable. Plato, writing through Socrates, identifies in The Republic what he thought justice was through the creation of an ideal city and an ideal soul. Both the ideal city and the ideal soul have three components which, when all are acting harmoniously, create what Socrates considers to be justice. Before he outlines this city and soul, he listens to the arguments of three men who hold popular ideas of the period. These men act to legitimize Socrates’ arguments because he finds logical errors in all of their opinions. In The Apology, a different, more down-to-Earth, Socrates is presented who, through his self-defense in court, reveals a different, even contradictory, view of the justice presented in The Republic. In this paper, the full argument of justice from The Republic will be examined, as well as the possible inconsistencies between The Republic and The Apology.

The most influential philosopher of the 5th century BCE is a man by the name of Socrates. His life and teachings are the foundation of Western Philosophy. Socrates was dedicated to reasoning and the development and investigation of the truth. Unpopular then, Socrates employed a strategy to pursue the truth by using dialectic. Socrates was one to question everything and anything less than the truth was received with more questions. Socrates never wrote anything down, and therefore any dialogues and teachings are dependent on his students Xenophon and Plato account. This gives rise to the Socratic Problem. What we do know, according to Plato’s Apology, is that Socrates’ divine mission is a complex one. Using two of Plato’s written accounts of

Plato’s “The Apology” takes places in Athens in 399 BC. Socrates, a natural philosopher, is put on trial and accused of failing to recognize the god of Athens, creating new deities, and corrupting the minds of the city youth. The Athenians, Anytus, Meletus, and Lycon fear that Socrates’ teachings lack respect for the legal customs and religious beliefs established in the city and could create a damaging effect on Athens’ community (Dan I.(n.d.). In this piece, Plato writes an account of Socrates’ speech attempting to defend himself. In this account, Socrates states that “An unexamined life is not worth living.” (Plato, n.d.). When saying this, Socrates claims that a person must examine themselves and determine the purpose of life, in order

Socrates is eventually found guilty and is to fight no longer for his innocence, but against a penalty of death. As Socrates speaks to the jury he begins to speak more of the meanings of life opposed to the need for life. He claims, “it is the greatest good for a man to discuss virtue every day and those other things about which you hear me conversing and testing myself and others, for the unexamined life is not worth living for men.. (Cahn pg. Apology39 38a1-4).” Although Socrates never explicitly states why he feels this way, but upon reading this statement and analyzing its context one can grasp a sense of this argument. Socrates is arguing that life is unlived if it is not questioned and our thoughts are not examined. He understands that his wisdom is far greater than that of the jury, and he feels that all other punishments would leave him unhappy and dissatisfied. He would rather suffer death than to go against the laws of the state, although he is being wrongly convicted. He feels he has lived a good life and a true life because he was able to examine himself and others true