Socrates Argument In The 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

Next, we already have the knowledge that Socrates understands how unwise it is to fear death, but he has a perception of death that grants him serenity and peace about being deceased. He enlightens the jury by explaining, “death is a state of nothingness and utter unconsciousness or a change and migration of the soul from this world to another” (pg. 69). In the majority of cases, humans will innately fear that state of nothingness and uncertainty, however Socrates’ approach differs. Even though this is the worst of the two possibilities when humans die, Socrates views this undisturbed slumber without any dreams or distractions to be a tremendous benefit. Socrates’ ideals mirror that of Ecclesiastes 9:5 which states, “For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not anything, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.” This parallels Socrates claiming that he does not fear death even if it is an

He says that if there is no life after death then you will simply cease to exist and then death would be the soundest sleep you could experience. You would no longer be aware of the pain and misery of life and eternity would seem to be one night of interrupted sound sleep. However, if you die and there is no after life, you will not be able to help friends and family in need. Socrates would not be able to continue to teach his children the ways of life and he would no longer be able to guide the youth of Athens in becoming “good fellow citizens.” At the end of the trial Socrates even asks the jury to watch after his family after he is gone to ensure his sons are raised properly. And then he states to the jury that

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

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?

However, I do feel quite a bit of compassion for his accusers. Socrates was changing their sons’ minds by making them question the supremacy and intelligence of the people whose wisdom was recognized in the state. He made young people question even the intelligence of their fathers. It should not have been easy for the fathers to stay put and listen to him philosophizing about his ideas of the world. No wonder Socrates had to beg them to listen to the end and not to interrupt at least three times throughout the Apology.

In Plato’s: The Apology Socrates was charged and put on trial for impiety, as well as accused of committing many other crimes. I will first explain the most important issues of why Socrates was sent to death. Then I will argue the position that Socrates is innocent, and should not be have been found guilty.

Socrates suggested that if he were to get what he deserved, he should be honored with a great meal for being of such service to the state. He rejected the sentences of prison or exile, offering instead to pay a fine. When the jury rejected his suggestions and sentenced him to death, Socrates accepted the verdict and said that no one but the gods know what happens after death and so it would be foolish to fear what one does not know. He also warned the people who voted against him that by silencing him rather than listening to him, they have harmed themselves much more than they have harmed him.

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.

The execution of Socrates is not justified. The charges that were brought against Socrates had taught all his adult life, without molestation, in a state that was well known for its democracy and fairness. The Athenians were not brutal people and executions were rare. Socrates had to drink a poisonous hemlock in order to die, a non-brutal method of death. We must understand Athens past in order to make judgment. I believe that the form of punishment was very extreme in this impressionable city and very uncommon and unalike the portrayed view of the typical Athenian. Socrates

Although, refusal to sacrifice rational thought wasn’t the only reason that Socrates wasn’t willing to accept the plea. Again, when confronting his own mortality Socrates announced to the jury that no man with a spark of decency “ought to consider life or death, the only thing he ought to consider... is whether he does right or wrong” (Apology, 515). For Socrates this idea of doing what is right is classified under the idea of justice, however; even Socrates has difficulty defining what justice is. Socrates attempts to define justice

In Plato’s Apology Socrates explains to the jury the reasons he should be found not guilty against his accused crimes. Although none of the accusations have any true merit Socrates is forced into the courtroom. During his defense Socrates states, “A man who really

In his Apology, Plato recounted the trial that led to the execution of his friend and mentor, Socrates. The account revealed that values of Socrates’ accusers and his own fundamentally differed, and that they had been angered because he tried to prove that they had misplaced theirs. Those differences created conflict between the two parties that culminated in his trial. With the understanding that a jury condemned Socrates to death and his defense nevertheless pleased him because he gave it truthfully, it is most sensible to call it a good defense because he felt it was the best that he could do.

Socrates’ views of death as represented in “The Trial and Death of Socrates” are irrevocably tied to his beliefs of what makes life significant. For Socrates, life must be examined through constant questioning and one must hold the goodness of life above all else. Consequently, even in the face of the un-good, or unjust in Socrates’ case as represented in his trial, it would not be correct to do wrong, return wrong or do harm in return for harm done. Therefore, no act should be performed with an account for the risk of life or death; it should be performed solely on the basis of whether it is good and right.