Essay on The Trial of Socrates

In his defense, Socrates claims over and again that he is innocent and is not at all wise, “…for I know that I have no wisdom, small or great.” Throughout the rest of his oration he seems to act the opposite as if he is better than every man, and later he even claims that, “At any rate, the world has decided that Socrates is in some way superior to other

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

Towards the end of Socrates' defense he states, " They enjoy hearing these being questioned who think they are wise, but are not." Socrates is telling the jury that he has been honest with them and that he does not corrupt the youth, the youth and others follow him around for the reason in quotations. This was Socrates' defense.

Socrates implies that the true nature of this charge was, in fact, vengeance carried out on the part of the power-holders of the Athenian society; the politicians, the poets, the manual artisans.  Socrates, unwillingly made fools out of these people by exposing their speeches as mere rhetoric than actual wisdom and knowledge.  These men who were seen as the wisest and the most enlightened, but in fact, by believing that they are most knowledgeble is what keeps them from real wisdom.  Socrates is also being charged with attacking the Athenian society by corrupting its citizens, mainly the youth.  He defends himself by claiming that either Meletus beleives that Socrates does not corrupt the youth or he does corrupt them but involuntarily.  Socrates bring to light that "if I corrupt them voluntarily, the law does not call upon you to procecute me for an error which is involuntary, but to take me aside privately and reprove and educate me" (33).  Socrates goes on further to say

So to sum up the trial, the charges against him were officially two, corrupting the youth and impiety. The two charges were, of course, linked, and, in the relevant senses, he was, we must admit, guilty of at least one of them. For his effect on the lives of the young men who followed him was indeed disrupting, and even corrupting, of the social order. What his followers learned from him above all else, is to do two things. They learned to scrutinize, and they learned to be skeptical. It was not that they mindlessly adopted a motto like "trust no one over 30," or that they became, like many of today 's young people, contrary simply for the sake of being contrary. Rather, they learned not to take on authority or on faith what others told them about virtue, justice, or piety; they were seeking, as was Socrates himself, the truth of the matter and the reasons for taking it to be the truth of the matter. And as we all know, the relentless pursuit of the truth produces enemies. A Socrates may in the long run serve mankind, but in the short run he aggravates virtually everyone around him.

The portrayal of Socrates, through the book “the trial and death of Socrates” is one that has created a fairly controversial character in Western history. In many ways, Socrates changed the idea of common philosophy in ancient Greece; he transformed their view on philosophy from a study of why the way things are, into a consideration man. Specifically, he analyzed the virtue and health of the human soul. Along side commending Socrates for his strong beliefs, and having the courage to stand by those convictions, Socrates can be commended for many other desirable characteristics. Some of those can include being the first martyr to die for his philosophical beliefs and having the courage to challenge indoctrinated cultural norms is part of

His position had an immense impact on the guilty verdict of his trial because he behaved arrogantly toward the judges who would choose his verdict and punishment. For example Socrates refused to refer to the judges to the as their titles but only as, Athenians. This caused an outrage towards Socrates this was seen as disrespectful. As well Socrates would talk back to the judges, “Do not interrupt me Athenians, with your shouts. Remember the request which I made to you, and do not interrupt my words”(pg. 41). Logically Socrates should have been much more agreeable towards the judges considering the situation he was in, but in contrast he remained true to his philosophical lifestyle and pursued his innocence in a way he felt was best.

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 question of why Socrates was executed and if he deserved the charges put against him has been asked by historians for centuries.

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

There are times in every mans life where our actions and beliefs collide—these collisions are known as contradictions. There are endless instances in which we are so determined to make a point that we resort to using absurd overstatements, demeaning language, and false accusations in our arguments. This tendency to contradict ourselves often questions our character and morals. Similarly, in The Trial of Socrates (Plato’s Apology), Meletus’ fallacies in reason and his eventual mistake of contradicting himself will clear the accusations placed on Socrates. In this paper, I will argue that Socrates is not guilty of corrupting the youth with the idea of not believing in the Gods but of teaching the youth to think for

time. The true nature of this charge was vengeance carried out on the part of

Ancient Athens was the site of a growing culture. Philosophy was among the many improvements and discoveries being made. With these improvements and discoveries, great thinkers were able to stretch out their knowledge to new heights. The society they lived in, both welcomed and shunned their ideals. Socrates was one of these thinkers. It was because of Socrates open-mindedness that he was sentenced to death by two charges brought against him. One, Socrates corrupted the youth and two, Socrates believed in ‘false gods’. Yet, was Socrates guilty or not?

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