The Contradictions Made In The Apology By Socrates

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

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 from these premises is that Meletus is contradicting himself, and Socrates is innocent.

   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?

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

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 third charge that was made against Socrates was that he went against the gods. One of the accusers named Meletus alternates between accusing Socrates that he is atheist and accusing him of having belief in new gods rather than the old gods. Now you tell me what you think of this. First

Socrates begins by asking Meletus if he thinks that Socrates has corrupted the young by “teach[ing] them not to acknowledge the gods which the state acknowledges, but some other new divinities,” and Meletus agrees that this is the reason for his accusation. However, Meletus further states that Socrates is a complete “atheist,” meaning that he does not believe in god at all. This inconsistency in Meletus’ answers refute the entire accusation that Socrates is an atheist because Meletus already has established that Socrates teaches “other men to acknowledge some gods, and therefore that [he] does believe in gods, and [is] not an entire atheist.” This can also be presented as an argument in which our first premise is (P1) that Atheists do not believe in Gods, our second premise is that (P2) Socrates believes in God, and our conclusion therefore is that (C) Socrates is not an Atheist. This logically proves that Meletus is incorrect in his reasoning and that Socrates is not guilty of teaching the youth not to believe in Gods as a whole, but has only attempted to broaden their minds by introducing them to divinities outside of the state.

Meletus’s next charge is that Socrates ‘believes in false gods’. Socrates says that he believes in Divine Spirits. Meletus takes this statement to mean that Socrates says that if Meletus believed in gods and goddesses, then he must believe in Divine Spirits. For they are the children of the gods. After hearing this statement Meletus changes his story many times saying that Socrates did not believe in any gods at all. Meletus is not sure which one it should be and continues to change it back and forth. Meletus’s action of contradicting himself, clearly showing that the charge had no validity.

He then defends himself by saying that it would be good if the youth would only had one corruptor and a great number of improvers but, that is not possible, in fact, it is the complete opposite. Meletus is again proven wrong and accusate Socrates of teaching the youth to believe in other gods that are not acknowledged by the republic but he does not explain himself ¨I infer from your indictment, that I teach them not to acknowledge the gods which the state acknowledges, but some other new divinities or spiritual agencies in their stead¨. Meletus is not able to prove his point again and he ends up looking like a fool but all along the text Socrates gives examples of horses and in ¨The Apology¨ and in ¨The republic¨ both by Plato, we can see how he gives various examples of horses to prove his points and win arguments and that Socrates will prove his points and facts to whoever is willing to

In Plato’s works Apology and Crito there is an attempt by Socrates to defend himself in court and defend his choice to receive the death penalty when found guilty. Although he makes very valid and strong arguments throughout one can only wonder why such a wise person would choose death over life. The following essay will analyze three quotes from Apology and Crito, find the correlation between them, and reveal any flaws that may exsist inside these arguments made by Socrates.

If he were still alive today, most people would just think Socrates to be a crazy old man, and they would proceed to ignore him. Alas, in times of Ancient Greece, things were not so black and white. At this point, Socrates was being accused of a few things, one of which was being described as “…a student of all things in the sky and below the earth…” An odd accusation to hear about today, but completely plausible in this day and age. By learning things other than the mythology that people were taught in Ancient Greece, such as science and logic, a person would be stating his or her denouncement belief in the gods. Practicing any other religion was most surely a death sentence in and of itself, so the idea of Socrates learning things against the gods was more than likely going to be perceived as treason against the gods themselves. Socrates’ counter to this is a weak one, and merely results in just a play on words. Socrates manages to convince Meletus to state that Socrates does indeed believe in spirits, whom are the “bastard children of the gods,” and, in his opinion, by Meletus stating that he believes in spirits, he is contradicting the

According to his accusers, Socrates didn’t believe in the same Gods as the Athenians and that he made up different spiritual beings. This accusation is false for many reasons. First, Socrates stated many times in