The Main Methods Of Socrates

During his trial, Socrates did not conform to the usual practices of the Athenian justice system. While another man on trial might lose all dignity, and beg for the charges to be dropped, Socrates’ plan was instead to “inform [the jury] of the facts and convince them by argument” (63). His belief was that “I do not think that it is just for a man to appeal to the jury or to get himself acquitted by doing so” (63). Socrates valued truth and logic above all else. In his eyes, he had no need to appease the jury or resort to the emotion-provoking measures that were

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

In both the ‘Apology’ and ‘Crito’, Plato represents Socrates as a staunch defender of law, particularly in the sense that respect for the legal order of one’s polity is a basic obligation of citizenship. What are the most important reasons Socrates provides for this position in defense of Athenian law? If we accept Lewis’ critique of emotional subjectivism (Gaius and Titius’ position) in ‘Abolition of Man’ as sound, we cannot interpret Socrates’ actions as merely the result of his subjective feelings. Why would Lewis insist that we interpret Plato’s Socrates in this way?

During Socrates’ defense against Meletus, Anytus, and Lycon in Plato’s Apology, Socrates states that he will refuse the jury’s decision, regarded as the Law of Athens, if the court were to acquit him on the basis that he stops practicing philosophy. However, later in Plato’s Crito, Socrates explains he cannot escape from prison due to the laws of Athens and thus adheres to the jury’s decision of a death sentence. Despite appearing to contradict himself, Socrates is actually not contradicting himself at all. Socrates asserts that he did nothing wrong in regard to the laws of Athens and has never been a bad example for the youth in comparison to everyone in the audience and jury. If Socrates were to lament and agree to the acquittal in order to live, then he would be going against his philosophical mission from god and would be agreeing that he did do something wrong; this is why Socrates testifies that he would die rather than agree to stop practicing philosophy. Since escaping jail to avoid death would contradict his ideals, Socrates refuses to disobey the laws of Athens, which he always adheres to, and decides he will commit to his sentencing despite the fact he is unjustly convicted. In both cases, Socrates is standing up for his ideals of philosophy and to his notion of goodness, which allows him to sensibly and honestly state that he will adhere to the jury (and therefore the Laws of Athens) in one case and is able to refuse to adhere to their judgments in another.

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

Socrates thinks that it is never permissible to break the law. He firstly thinks that destroying the law means destroying the whole State, and he explains deeply by saying that the law can’t be broken just because a person can do so, if this is the case, the law will not be important and effective in a nation. He also resembles the law to a parent and his son. A son can’t and shouldn’t harm his father in order to protect or benefit himself, so the law. As Socrates simplifies, the law should be accepted entirely, no matter if it is just or unjust, it is not worth it to destroy the law, which leads to destroying the whole State to protect and save only you. Socrates talks about how the law formed his life firstly when his parents got married by law, the education, and other training he acquired during his life. Finally, Socrates thinks that dying unjust is better than breaking the law, escaping which is immoral action, and then being unwelcome by

Throughout the Apology, Socrates prides himself in truth. He reasonably attempts to convince the judges as well as the people of Athens of his innocence. Socrates explains why the accusations against him are unreasonable, given his necessity to obey his virtues and purpose. However, he also mentions that he will not beg against punishment, given that he cannot fear what he does not know, death and the afterlife. Through his argument he challenges the court and essentially discredits his morality as he declares that even if he was released under the condition of abandoning his practice of questioning people, he would have to disobey (Apology 29d-e). Plato’s Socrates says, “...I will obey the god rather than you, and as long as I draw breath and am able , I shall not cease to practice philosophy…” (Apology 29d-e). The argument being that he questions people in order to spread goodness and knowledge simply because he cares about all those in the city. His purpose revolves around educating both the young and the old to prioritize truth and the soul’s state instead of being focused on materialism and power because realistically, one’s wealth does not correlate with one’s intellectuality. Consequently, Plato’s Socrates mentions that one must be most focused on one’s knowledge since it is the only attribute that leads to power, greatness, and wealth.

Socrates expressed many beliefs that opposed the commonly held beliefs of many of the elite members of Athenian society. For instance, he believed in divine power—that gods could use their powers to affect life on Earth—but he did not believe in many of the gods that most Greeks believed in. For Socrates, focusing on what is moral, or right, and on how people should best lead their lives was more important than focusing on what the gods wanted. In addition, he emphasized the search for knowledge related to important moral issues, such as justice. Because of this, he often questioned people about their beliefs and criticized the democratic system of Athens

therefore, should comply with the laws of the state. Speaking for the laws, Socrates says the proof of his love for the state lies in the facts that he raised his children there, never left the city, did not show interest in visiting any other city states, and most importantly, shunned the idea of exile in exchange for his life during his trial, saying he would rather die than leave Athens. By these arguments, Socrates shows that from the state’s POV, he is a loyal citizen who has chosen to live under its rules and to disobey the rules which have been accepted and instilled in him since birth, would be changing his own belief system, to benefit him in a time of need.

Socrates can’t stop there he states, “So even now I continue this investigation that god bade me- and I go around seeking out anyone, citizen or stranger, whom I think wise. Then if I do not think he is, I come to the assistance of the god and show him that he is not wise.” 23b. Socrates sticks to his morals in pointing out the shortcomings in Athens even if this offends the jury and ultimately cost him

In page 7, Socrates starts by questioning Meletus about the living area of people. Miletus believes that Socrates “corrupting and deteriorating the youth” intentionally, so he charges Socrates. But according to Socrates’ query, nobody is willing to get the bad influence “intentionally”. Besides, Socrates never corrupt anyone. Even if he has, he does it unintentionally. Therefore, Socrates states that Meletus’ charge of him is illogical. “You hated to converse with me or teach me, but you indicted me in this court, which is a place not of instruction, but of punishment.” He believes that he is not guilty. Even if he is, he should not come to this court and facing the charges.

Socrates is known for his ability to ask questions of people and cause them to think critically about the topic to formulate ideas. It’s a method that causes the person defending a point of view to question and possibly contradict themselves to strengthen the others point. Socrates ability to use analogies and ignorance of his accuser, Meletus, was a valid way of defending the charges set against him. Socrates is accused of corrupting the youth of Athens by Meletus. However, Socrates argues that it was unintentional.

The unjust conviction of Socrates can be considered an unjust act by the Laws. Such unjust actions are inconsistent with the preservation or care of virtue. General agreement seems to state that people should be punished in response to unjust acts as an attempt to maintain their virtue. For example, this appears to be the entire reason for Socrates’ punishment from Athens in the first place. Socrates performed actions the city deemed unjust and was punished in response. The punishment was an attempt to guide Socrates and other citizens toward virtue. Thus, if a person performs an unjust act, they should be punished. The punishment serves as an attempt to care for their virtue. Therefore, it would be justified for the Laws to be punished in response to their unjust act. In the first speech by the Laws, they ask Socrates, “Do you think you have this right to retaliation against your country and its laws?” (51a2-3). Due to Socrates’ care for the virtue of the Laws, he assumes the aforementioned right to retaliation against them, provided they commit an act that detracts from their virtue. If one cares about the Laws and their virtue, it is right for that person to punish the Laws as an attempt to care for their well-being. It follows then, that Socrates is not only justified in punishing the Laws, but also that

Socrates begins by stating that, since Meletus claims to know who is corrupting the youth, he must know who improves them. After some back and forth between the two men, Socrates gets Meletus to say that all Athenians improve the youth and that Socrates is the only one who corrupts the youth. Socrates continues to use Meletus own words against him throughout and thus making him look quite foolish in front of the court. “ I have said enough in answer to the charge of Meletus: any elaborate defence is unnecessary; but as I was saying before, I certainly have many enemies, and this is what will be my destruction if I am destroyed; of that I am certain;--not Meletus, nor yet Anytus, but the envy and detraction of the world, which has been the death of many good men, and will probably be the death of many more; there is no danger of mine being the last of them.” (p. 29). Here Socrates, in my opinion, shows the court again that he will turn the other cheek to his accusers and not blame them, but instead chooses to blame what I would like to call the human condition. That is, putting your own self interests before that of others to further your gain. This is why Socrates struggles with anyone giving him a definition of piety, because I think that to Socrates piety means acting altruistic. Since the human condition is that of self serving your own interests, he sees through peoples definitions because he knows that they

that a thing is not seen because it is in a state of being seen, it is in a state of being seen because it is seen, and the same for the comparisons. Socrates clarifies what he means by saying that if anything becomes, or is affected, it does not become because it is in a state of becoming, it is in a state of becoming because it is