Socrates Apology

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

Plato’s Apology, is by far one of the most logical yet critical thinking text that I have ever read. Plato describes Socrates, the accused atheist and corrupter of youth in ancient Athens, as a true beacon of ethics and morality. The method that Plato uses to depict Socrates on trial gives us a look back on how the trial of a man who encourages one of sound mind to ask questions even to those who are deemed wise in the eyes of others. Despite facing odds that are stacked highly against him, and this being his first time in court “For I am more than seventy years of age, and this is the first time that I have ever appeared in a court of law, and I am quite a stranger to the ways of the place; and therefore I would have you regard me as if I

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,

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 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 is at the age of seventy and appearing in a law court for the first time. For the people of Socrates time is accusing Socrates, for miss leading the youth corrupting them and boasting about being wise, causing him to become very unpopular. Socrates says to the jury I am going to speak the whole truth, for it is me by myself that I have to defend. He says my accusers are many and I don’t know them, they say, “you should be careful not be deceived by an accomplished speaker like me” (Cohen, Curd, & Reeve, 2000). The accuser goes on to say that Socrates is accomplished speaker; Socrates starts to praise them, because their lies are so good well put together, that Socrates himself is almost convinced but then he says that they do not

In Plato 's “The Apology of Socrates”, Socrates states, “the unexamined life is not worth living” and he would rather be put to death them stop his practice of philosophy (The Apology). In this writing, Socrates is charged with not accepting the gods recognized by the state, devising new gods, and corrupting the youth of Athens. However, the word "apology" in the title is not our modern English interpretation of the word. The name of the speech stems from the Greek word "apologia," which translates as a speech made in defense (SparkNotes Editors). The “The Apology of Socrates” is an account of the speech Socrates makes at the trial in which he defends himself, not apologizes. What Socrates meant by declaring, “the unexamined life is not worth living”, is that a life is worth living only if it is lived in as a pursuit for a life worthy of a man to live (The Apology). Socrates believed what makes a man worthy of life is that he lives up to what is best in him as a man. Therefore this quote can be better translated as, “the unexamined life is not a worthy life for a man to live”. Socrates believes a good or worthy man has virtue. Virtue is behavior showing high moral standards such as honor and nobility. An unexamined life is one that does not examine oneself for these characteristics but claims to have wisdom. This unexamined life can be also compared to living your life on autopilot with the same dull routine and beliefs. According to Socrates, to live an examined life, one

Socrates was a great philosopher of the Greek world. He was quite an atypical and distinctive person. Being different from all the other philosophers of the land, Socrates was teaching his students ideas totally out of the ordinary from what the society believed was right. As a result, he displeased many people so much that they decided to get rid of him. Socrates was put to trial, accused of spoiling the youth of Athens, tried and sentenced to death. His personal defense is described in works two of his students: Xenophon and Plato. Both of them wrote papers called Apology, which is the Greek word for “defense”. In this essay I used Apology by Plato as the main resource, since it contents a more full account of the trial of Socrates and

As a defender of civic virtue, the significance of obligation and authority of one’s representative government epitomizes the magnitude of respect that Socrates had for Athenian Jurisprudence, irrespective of the fact that he was prosecuted against. In the accounts of the Apology and Crito, there exists a plethora of evidence that demonstrate Socrates’s adherence of institutionalized authority. His loyalty of the Athenian State derives from his notion that the obligation to surrender to the law manifests a just society. One may ask, “how is it possible for a persecuted man to continue to profess allegiance to a polity that sought his trial and execution”? Though many would not have the capacity to sustain such integrity, Socrates had his reasons in

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.

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

According to the majority of the jury members of Athens, Socrates is a corruption to the youth, doer of evil and does not agree with the gods of his people. In the Apology, written by Plato these are the assumptions and accusations Socrates is held in court for. In court, he is faced with what most men fear, being wrongly accused leading to the death sentence. Socrates argues and strives to prove that he has no fear of being hated, being accused of serious crimes, being threatened with punishment, or being put to death.

Socrates was a pompous man who believed that he was wiser than most, if not all, Athenian men of his time. He is also credited as one of the fathers of western philosophy, his own philosophy revolving around the welfare of one’s soul and reflecting on what the good life was. He was told by an oracle that he was the wisest of men and spent a great deal of time trying to prove it false, he decided that he was considered wise for accepting that he knew nothing, and never claimed to know anything that he questioned. In Plato’s text “Apology” Socrates is depicted as a man who was arrogant, hypercritical of others, and fixed on his ways no matter the consequences. He had the qualities of a man who saw no error in what he was doing because he

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.

Plato’s account of Socrates’ defense against charges of corrupting the youth and heresy, reveal the ancient teacher’s view of justice as fairness and support of rule of law. In the Apology, Socrates faces a moral dilemma: to either accept his punishment for crimes he did not commit or to accept the assistance of his friends and escape death by the hand of the state. His choice to accept death in order to maintain rule of law reveals his belief of justice. He beliefs his punishment to be just not because he committed the crimes but because his sentence came through a legal process to which he consented. By sparing his life, he would weaken the justice system of Athens which he values above his own existence. This difference between the two men’s beliefs regarding justice draws the sharpest contrast in their views of effective leadership and government.