A Better Understanding of Socrates

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Socrates’ beliefs
Socrates’ punishment
Conclusion
References

Introduction

To get a better understanding of why Socrates thought that Athenian democracy was unjust, a brief overview of Athenian democracy is needed. In Athens, only citizens were allowed to take part in debates and vote on issues of public concern. This sounds like a great idea and makes one wonder why all states did not adopt such a great system. Well, the answer to this is that Athens’ description of a ‘citizen’ is less than perfect. A citizen consisted of only “Athenian men who held property. Women, slaves, and foreigners resident in Athens were not allowed to participate in public debate or to vote in the Assembly”. (Plato, 65).

Socrates’ beliefs

Socrates believed that the Oligarchic system in Sparta and Crete was better administered than the democratic system in Athens. This is not to say, however, that he did not love living in Athens. As seen in The Crito, he did not want to live anywhere else. When Socrates spoke about the Athenian democracy, he mostly referred to its administration as opposed to its laws. About the administration of Athenian democracy, Socrates persuasively believed that it was unjust.

It is obvious that throughout The Apology Socrates did not make any real efforts to defend himself against his accusers. The reason he did not do such a thing is that he did not, “think that it is just for a man to appeal to the jury or to get himself acquitted by doing so; he ought to inform them of the facts and convince them by argument”. (Gilbert, 87) Even throughout his trial, where he was sure he would be sentenced to death6, Socrates did not go against anything that he believed in. It was more important for him to die for his cause than to be acquitted and forced to give up philosophy.

Socrates never killed anyone, he never stole from anyone he never committed any crime for which he deserved the death penalty. He never asked anyone for money in return for his teachings. He lived his life for the sole purpose of trying, “to persuade each one of you not to think more of practical advantages than of his mental and moral well-being, or in general to think more of an advantage than of well-being, in the case of the state and anything else”. (Plato, 57) He dedicated his life, sacrificing his family and his wealth, to teaching Athens how to live a better life, and in return for his unselfish acts, he was put to death. A system that puts a just man to death must be unjust.

Socrates’ punishment

Socrates states that the will of the Athenian people was final, and whatever punishment they decided on, he would accept (Apology 29b). However, Socrates does say that he would not accept a punishment of him to stop philosophizing as it was against god’s will (Apology 29d). Socrates also says “be sure that this is what the god orders me to do, and I think there is no greater blessing for the city than my services to the god” (Apology 30a). In his conversation in Crito 50b-c, Socrates states his intention to disobey this punishment if it is what the jury decided suited his crimes. This too is contradictory to what Socrates says at 48a-c of Crito. It is at this stage where Socrates insults the majority and says that people who do not know about an issue or do not specialize in that issue, their opinions are not as valuable as someone who knows the issue. This can be interpreted into an argument that since the jury is not made up of lawyers (people who know the law) how can they determine the legality of Socrates’ actions? If Socrates’ actions were legal, and he doesn’t believe in the opinion of people who do not work in that field, i.e. law, then why would he obey their verdict?

There is a contradiction in Socrates’ argument. Socrates first says that the will of the Athenian people is paramount, and then later says that the will of the Gods is Paramount. These two perspectives are conflicting. As well Socrates disobeyed the orders of the Thirty Tyrants, who were at that time the lawmakers. According to Socrates’ argument, even if he disagreed with them he had an obligation to obey. Socrates said that no one person is above the law, yet he disobeyed because he felt the order was unjust. (Gilbert, 96) This is contradictory to what Socrates said before because one person’s values should not be above the law, yet he decided to disobey based on his opinion of the order. Since Socrates argues that it is wrong to inflict harm onto others, any law that ordered him to do this unjust action would also disobey.

Socrates does make an adequate case that you must either obey or persuade. Socrates did make some very strong arguments about why each citizen had a responsibility to its countries laws. If every citizen were to follow the laws based on what they thought about them, then most people would do what they wanted and claim they do not agree with a certain law. This would lead to anarchy. Athens was considered to be a civilized city of intellectual people. If someone believed that a certain law was unjust then they had a few choices, to obey, to leave, or to persuade people to change the laws because it did not correspond to the “nature of justice”.

Socrates believed that Athenian democracy was unjust, in terms of the individuals that represent it, because from the time that many of his jurors were children they were approached by individuals who spoke ill of Socrates.

A jury can’t vote fairly and justly on the outcome of Socrates’ case when many of them held biases towards Socrates. Even though Socrates could try to paint a better picture of him, as he did later on in The Apology, he can never completely change the minds of those who wish him ill.

For Socrates’ trial to have been just, which in turn would make Athenian democracy just; individuals who disliked him should not have been allowed to participate in determining his fate. Especially individuals who had been made to believe that Socrates was a bad person from the time they were children. It is difficult enough to try and persuade jurors that one is not guilty of a crime; it is even more difficult to do such a thing when many of the jurors have detested one for many years.

Conclusion

Socrates spent his life trying to improve the condition of his fellow citizen’s lives. He never once asked to be paid for his generosity or to be rewarded for it. He freely accepted his death based on the belief that that is what the laws of Athens wanted his fate to be. Socrates proved his accusers were wrong in their accusations against him. The fact that the Athenian jurors still sentenced him to death supports the statement that about the administration of Athenian democracy Socrates persuasively believed that it was unjust.

In any event, one concludes that the Delphic Oracle was a definite turning point in Socrates’ life. Perhaps it changes Socrates’ interest from the physical and astronomical studies with moral and political thought. This turning point brings Socrates into conflict with the city of Athens. His doubt of the opinions taken on authority also concerned the cities god and the cities laws. That made him dangerous in the eyes of the leaders. Socrates’ thought was a painful sting to the glorified convictions of human conduct that meant so much to the city. Socrates made the political and moral questions the focus and theme of his ‘second sailing’ as he suggested in Aristophanes ‘Clouds’. By Socrates’ turn, philosophy now becomes political. The ‘Apology’ presents a critique of political life from the view of philosophy. Socrates disrupts prevailing opinions without providing a substantial opinion to replace them. This may be intentional as to let the man decide between his longings and the necessity of political life. The problem now is how to make philosophy friendly to politics.

References

Plato, “The Trail and Death of Socrates”, translated by G.M.A Grube, Indianapolis, Indiana. Hackett Publishing Company Ltd: 1975.

Plato, “Plato: Apology” Edited by James J. Helm, Bolchazy-Carducci Publishers; Rev Sub edition: 1997.

Gilbert P. Rose “Plato’s Apology (Greek Commentaries Series)” Bryn Mawr Commentaries: 1989.

Click Here To Order Now!

A Better Understanding of Socrates

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)