Defense of Socrates

In Apology, Socrates is confronted with questioning of why he thinks people slander him the way they do. To answer, Socrates brings up the term of “human wisdom.” This is a type of wisdom that is not godly, and Socrates expresses that he is not wise at all. Human wisdom composes the notion that having great wisdom is having the ability to not think he knows what he does not know. In order to support his claim, Socrates brings up the Oracle story. Here, Chaerephon asked the Oracle if anyone was wiser then Socrates and “Pythian replied that no one was wiser.” In Socrates understanding of how he was most wiser, he told a story about going to three different types of people: politicians, poets, and craftsmen. Out of these three, it was understood that the hierarchy is reversed and the craftsmen are truly wise in their craft but felt this made them speak in other fields, when if fact they knew nothing about. These cases bring up the human wisdom and why Socrates is exploited as very wise, because he does not try to think and speak on something he does not know. The oracle brings up the “form” of what human wisdom is and uses Socrates as an example. In the end, the person who is wisest knows that his wisdom is worthless.

On the first charge that Meletus brought against Socrates that he, ‘corrupted the youth’, this charge could have been seen as true by many. Socrates was teaching his followers to think for themselves. The government and people may have seen this as a threat. They believed that the youth may the try to break away from the norms that were set up, which would have lead to havoc.

He goes on to tell the story of why he began to challenge the intellectuals of society in the first place. Socrates tells of a deceased friend by the name of Chaerephon who “… went to Delphi and boldly asked the oracle to tell him whether… there was anyone wiser than I [Socrates] was, and the Pythian prophetess answered that there was no man wiser.” This troubles Socrates, and he contemplates what this statement really means. Unable to come to a sound conclusion, he devises a plan to get the answer he seeks: “I reflected that if I could only find a man wiser than myself, then I might go to the god with a refutation in my hand. I should say to him, ‘Here is a man who is wiser than I am; but you said that I was the wisest.’” After meeting with a man who had a reputation for being wise, however, Socrates departed without the man wiser than he. He left the man, thinking to himself: “Well, although I do not suppose that either of us knows anything really beautiful and good, I am better off than he is – for he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows.” After encounters with multiple men who possess supposed wisdom, Socrates realizes the prophecy must be correct: “… but the truth is, O men of Athens, that God only is wise; and in this oracle he means to say that the wisdom of men is little or nothing…” Socrates proceeds to question Meletus in front of the councilmen. He questions Meletus about the charges he has brought against him and his reasons

The Apology is one of the many written dialogues written by Plato that discuss how Socrates was arrested and charged with corrupting the youth of Athens; teaching

Continuing with his defense Socrates addresses one of his accusers Meletus in accordance to the accusation that he is a corrupter of youth.. He asks a series of questions to Meletus which he answers yes to all. But it Socrates’ last question that shows his true motive for all the questions, “Then every Athenian improves and elevates them; all with the exception of myself; and I alone am their corrupter? Is that what you affirm?”(Plato) Meletus replies “That is what I stoutly affirm.”(Plato) Socrates’ response to this just add another mark for his cleverness “I am very unfortunate if that is true. … Happy indeed would be the condition of youth if they had one corrupter only, and all the rest of the world were their improvers.”(Plato) By asking these questions to Meletus, Socrates exposes Meletus’ answers as counterintuitive: For if they were true then the society of Athens would be a much better place with little to no corruption. Socrates reveals it is those who are accusing the innocent of being corrupt that are themselves corrupt.

Socrates, the father of western philosophy, was an incredible apologist. While he never wrote any books of his own, his teaching is filtered through the ages from his apprentices. Plato, one of his students, wrote “The Apology” describing Socrates’ defense against the accusations that led him to be on trial. The story begins with Socrates opening with an appeal to the jury. His defense is simply his skills of rhetoric. Instead of bringing evidence, as seen in a normal court of law today, he decides to defend himself with logic and reason. He shows cool composure in facing prosecution from a jury that was biased against him. In the Apology, Socrates demonstrates his knowledge, courage, and fortitude when facing his accusers and responding to their challenges but also shows his natural tendency to be blunt and abrasive.

The third issue Socrates was found guilty was because he was assumed to have polluted the children of Athens. This meant Socrates was damaging the minds of the future of Athens and this charge was not taken lightly.

The charges against Socrates were brought upon him by a man names Meletus. Meletus was a young man that Socrates did not know very well. These charges brought on by Meletus caused the indictment of Socrates. One of the charges in the affidavit written by Meletus against Socrates is that he is "corrupting the youth." Another charge that is brought upon Socrates is that of he is making up new Gods and disregarding the old Gods the Athenians believe in. These were the charges brought on Socrates.

So to sum up the trial, the charges against him were officially two, corrupting the youth and impiety. The two charges were, of course, linked, and, in the relevant senses, he was, we must admit, guilty of at least one of them. For his effect on the lives of the young men who followed him was indeed disrupting, and even corrupting, of the social order. What his followers learned from him above all else, is to do two things. They learned to scrutinize, and they learned to be skeptical. It was not that they mindlessly adopted a motto like "trust no one over 30," or that they became, like many of today 's young people, contrary simply for the sake of being contrary. Rather, they learned not to take on authority or on faith what others told them about virtue, justice, or piety; they were seeking, as was Socrates himself, the truth of the matter and the reasons for taking it to be the truth of the matter. And as we all know, the relentless pursuit of the truth produces enemies. A Socrates may in the long run serve mankind, but in the short run he aggravates virtually everyone around him.

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

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.

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

The apology is an account of the speech that Socrates makes during his trial. In Socrates’ trial, he is being accused of not recognizing the same gods that the others in Athens recognize (specifically that those in authority). Instead, Socrates is charged with inventing new gods, and in doing so is corrupting the youth of Athens to whom, Socrates frequently preaches to about his theology. Socrates’ speech, however, is not an apology, as the name may suggest but rather an explanation of his beliefs. During his trial speech, Socrates makes frequent reference to his beliefs explaining that his behavior stems from a prophecy by the oracle at Delphi, which claims that he was the wisest of all men. Although Socrates is honest and direct about these beliefs, this did not sit well with many of the trial members who were evaluating him. Despite the fact that Socrates made frequent references to the fact that it is destined for him to be the wisest of all men, he also recognizes that he does in fact lack in knowledge when it comes to world affairs. To which, Socrates states only adds to his wisdom as he is aware of the fact that he does not know everything and that realization alone makes him wiser than most other men.

In these, he tested to see how wise so-called wise men were and each and every time he claimed that these men were not wise at all. Socrates went and tested all sorts of men from poets, politicians, and artisans. He claimed that all were inferior to him because they claimed to know much when they knew not much at all. And that, although he did not know all the tings these men knew, he was still wiser. He went so far as to tell these men what he thought, and even stated all these feelings in the court. This, no doubt, led to his general hatred more than any other act. But I wonder, had anyone ever questioned Socrates? And on what basis did he judge wisdom? Socrates claimed that a man who thought themselves the wisest were the least, but that is exactly what he was, a man who thought himself the wisest. Maybe he was the type of person to dislike any man who’s intellect challenged his own. “Is there not here conceit of knowledge, which is a disgraceful sort of ignorance? And this is the point in which, as I think, I am superior to men in general.”

Had people believed that Socrates in fact had no wisdom, his reputation would not have become so bad and his defense would have been more likely to succeed. He explained, however that individuals whom he criticized took offense at him and grew angry because they felt that he had more wisdom than they did. “’…I am called wise, for my hearers always imagine that I myself possess the wisdom which I find wanting in others: but the truth is, O men of Athens, that God only is wise; and in this oracle he means to say that the wisdom of men is little or nothing…’” (Plato, 5) While that statement would not have convinced many people that Socrates lacked wisdom, it succeeded at presenting the idea that the oracle meant the wisdom of people is little or nothing. That likely benefited him among his supporters and some neutral jurors because they could have believed that Socrates’ mission had been to show that people lacked wisdom compared to gods rather than that he had more wisdom than others did. Among people who disliked him or who took pride in their ‘wisdom,’ the argument would not have helped him; they wouldn’t have believed in the piety of his mission and they would have thought that it proved the superiority of his wisdom to theirs.