The Apology of Socrates: Guilty or Innocent? Essay

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

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

In the retelling of his trial by his associate, Plato, entitled “The Apology”; Socrates claims in his defense that he only wishes to do good for the polis. I believe that Socrates was innocent of the accusations that were made against him, but he possessed contempt for the court and displayed that in his conceitedness and these actions led to his death.

Albert Einstein quoted, “In matters of truth and justice, there is no difference between large and small problems, for issues concerning the treatment of people are all the same” (Brainy Quote). Were justice and truth a part of Socrates’ trial? The primary question is: what is justice? According to Merriam-Webster dictionary, the definition of justice is: “the administration of law, especially the establishment or determination of rights according to the rules of law or equity.” Meletus brought an elder man to court for corrupting the youth and for refusing to believe in the gods of the city. 501 Athenian male residents observed as the jury to magistrate and center their decisions off Meletus’s accusations and Socrates’ defense to

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

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 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.

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 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.

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.

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

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.

In Plato's, The Apology of Socrates, Socrates was accused and on trial for two charges: that he had corrupted the youth of Athens with his teachings, and, that he advocated the worship of false gods. Socrates taught his students to question everything in a thirst for knowledge. Thus, many politicians were looked at as hypocrites. Because of this, many politicians feared Socrates and wanted Socrates away from Athens. Socrates tried to defend himself against the charges by addressing each accusation. He classified the accusations into two categories, recent and ancient. The recent being the actual accusations and the ancient being the rumors that had circled Athens for years about how Socrates was a man of evil and a man who makes the worse

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.

While at first glance it would appear as though Socrates is guilty, however, if one looks through his defense following the understanding of the charges it becomes quite clear that Socrates did not corrupt the minds of young men. Before approaching Socrates defense, it must be understood that he had no issue angering people by speaking what he believed to be true. This is seen when he mocked the jurors and most certainly disdained those that attempted to pander to the emotions of the jurors