The Apology of Socrates: Guilty or Innocent? Essay

In court, it was Socrates’ responsibility to defend himself against the accusations. Back then, they had no lawyers, so instead the accused would defend themselves. He calls up Meletus to cross-examine him and proceeds to attack the charges that were made against him. He begins with who improves the youth, and Meletus tries to go around the question and replies that the laws do. Socrates agrees but asks who made the laws—no one but the judges, of course. So he asks Meletus which judge, and then what senator, corrupts the youth too, to which Meletus has answered all that none of them do. Overall, Meletus clearly states before the court that everyone improves the youth but Socrates, which is a ridiculous statement.

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

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

caused him to stand trial is such that “Socrates is an evil-doer, and a curious person, who

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.

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.

Socrates says that the young men follow me, but not on my account they try to imitate what I say, which causes their fathers to be angry with me. Socrates says I have been accused of corrupting the youth, but I say Meletus is guilty of such things. For it is Meletus who does not believe in the gods of the city and corrupting the youth, Socrates and Meletus start to argue about the rights and wrongs of the law. Socrates proves his point by saying that Meletus contradicts himself, for he say that Socrates doesn’t believe in gods but Socrates I do believe in the gods.

Early in the Apology, Socrates argues that the charges of Meletus are not only false, but have led to the rise of prejudice against him, and he demonstrates this through what he considers his own reflection on the charges against him. Socrates suggests the indictment against him should read: “Socrates is guilty of engaging in inquiries into things beneath the earth and in the heaven, of making the weaker argument appear the stronger, and of teaching others the same things”. Socrates suggests that the breadth of the indictment against him could encompass the premises supported by many men, and that it is only through the prejudice against him, the belief in his wisdom purported by some, and the sense that Socrates has influenced men that has resulted in the charges, not through the true belief that Socrates has taken actions against the State.

After reading “The Apology,” I decided to respond about how Socrates used the Socratic Method during his trial. Socrates, using this method, crafted a personal defense against the allegations laid upon him and, at the same time, Socrates led Miletus to trap himself as a part of that defense. I believe that Socrates’ decision to defend himself in this manner brings up some important considerations. First, Socrates using the Socratic Method as an integral part of his defense not only unraveled most of Miletus’ support, but Socrates was able to showcase his wisdom to the people of the court to show them what kind of person Socrates was when he acted as he usual did. Secondly, Socrates, through his attack on Miletus showed the people of the court the potential threat that Socrates could have been this entire time had that been his focus. Both of these considerations are possible only because Socrates’ used his method of questioning to craft a defense for himself.

Later in his defense Socrates states, “If I corrupt some young men and have corrupted others, then surely some of them who have grown older and realized that I gave them bad advice when they were young should now themselves come up here to accuse me and avenge themselves” (Apology 36). However, at this moment in

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

Socrates was a man who spent most of his time talking to people. He would ask them hypothetical questions, and make them think for themselves about the true answer they believed in, by serving as a guide for the conversation. Many people, including the accusers, believed that while Socrates did this, he was serving as a Sophist. A Sophist is a person who talks to people, and teaches them how to argue a point, whether the point is right or wrong. A Sophist would collect money for this lesson, and go on with their teachings (Xenophon 42). This accusation is inaccurate because Socrates did not collect any money for his conversations with people. Instead, Socrates was a very poor man, who happened to have rich friends. Talking to these people was a way for Socrates to try to spread his way of life to the Athenian's. He enjoyed conversing with people about ethical issues, and moral beliefs. In his argument, Socrates refutes Meletus' charge that he corrupts the young. One crucial point deals with the idea of Socrates as a paid teacher. This would imply that Socrates was actively seeking students and teaching "corrupting" ideas. This plays a part in the argument, by Meletus, that Socrates has deliberately corrupted the youth. Socrates says that, "the young men who follow me around of their own free will, those who have most leisure, the sons

The conclusion that can be made about these premises is that Socrates is not the one who is corrupting the youth because he is a specialist in this field. In addition, the real corruptors of the youth are the greater population of Athens because they are not specialist on teaching wisdom. What important about this conclusion is that even though Socrates uses horses as an example he manages to apply his example to all beings and prove his case that he is innocent of the charges.

The actual claim from the passage was “Socrates is an evil-doer and a curious person, who searches into things under the earth and in the heavens”. I mean for real, what kind of bogus crime is this? Socrates didn’t argue the physical over the metaphysical. His main goal was to find knowledge, he wanted to instill his knowledge onto others, and he wanted to make the world a better place. In the passage I don’t think Socrates really cared too much about this charge anyway. He says “I will ask you then to assume with me that my opponents are of two kinds: one more recent, the other from the past. I will answer the latter first, for these accusations you heard long before the others”. He says that people before him otherwise known as the Sophists are the people who have been committing this crime, even when this crime isn’t really a crime. For these Sophists were held at a high social status for doing these things. Socrates also said that people claim that he can walk in the air. Socrates never lied about or pretended to know about this, however he doesn’t throw out the probability that it is possible threw teachings.

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.