Self-Knowledge And Virtue In The Apology By Plato

Socrates, in his conviction from the Athenian jury, was both innocent and guilty as charged. In Plato’s Five Dialogues, accounts of events ranging from just prior to Socrates’ entry into the courthouse up until his mouthful of hemlock, both points are represented. Socrates’ in dealing with moral law was not guilty of the crimes he was accused of by Meletus. Socrates was only guilty as charged because his peers had concluded him as such. The laws didn’t find Socrates guilty; Socrates was guilty because his jurors enforced the laws. The law couldn’t enforce itself. Socrates was accused of corrupting Athens’ youth, not believing in the gods of the city and creating his own gods. In the Euthyphro, Socrates defends himself against the

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.

   In any case of law, when considering truth and justice, one must first look at the validity of the court and the system itself.  In Socrates' case, the situation is no different.  One may be said to be guilty or innocent of any crime, but guilt or innocence is only as valid as the court it is subjected to.  Therefore, in considering whether Socrates is guilty or not, it must be kept in mind the norms and standards of Athens at that time, and the validity of his accusers and the crimes he allegedly committed.  Is Socrates guilty or innocent of his accusations?

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

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 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

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.

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 was a classical Greek philosopher credited as one of the founders of Western philosophy. In the book, Apology by Plato, Socrates was accused for corrupting the youth and not believing in the gods of the state. He tries to deliver a speech in his own defense at the trial, convincing the men of Athens that he was innocent, but he fails. It is said that thanks to these accusations he has been having a bad reputation. One of the things that can make his speech a little contradictory is his claiming of having a lot of wisdom. He claims to be very wise and sometimes put himself above the men of Athens. This can bring a negative impact on the decision because no one is supposed to consider themselves superior than the jurors. At the end, they are the ones who make decisions. Although he claims to be wiser and better than the jurors, he makes

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

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

He interrogates a series of politicians, poets, and craftsmen. As one would expect, Socrates' investigation reveals that those who claim to have knowledge either do not really know any of the things they claim to know, or else know far less than they proclaim to know. The most knowledgeable of the bunch, the craftsmen, know about their craft, but they claim to know things far beyond the scope of their expertise. Socrates, so we are told, neither suffers the vice of claiming to know things he does not know, nor the vice of claiming to have wisdom when he does not have wisdom. This statement goes back to the idea of wisely ignorant human beings because it goes to show how being so wise like the craft men can really help but backfire being to wise which can be interrupted as being

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 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