Category: The Apology

Introduction

This paper explores the remarks of the journal entry entitled Commentary on the Apology, which discusses the accusations by Meletus against Socrates based on Platos Apology. The setting is Socrates trial for the accusations of corrupting the youth with false wisdom and of not believing in the gods of Athens but in other new spiritual things.

This paper contains a description of the proceedings of the trial, explanations of Socrates unofficial accusations, the official charges against him by Meletus and his corresponding responses, and a discussion of the verdict of his trial and Socrates response to it.

Unofficial Accusations Against Socrates

At the start of his defense, Socrates disclaimed himself as an accomplished speaker. He claimed to only seek truth and thus, admitted that he may be a skillful speaker if skillful speaking meant to speak the truth. He asked for pardon on his language and manner of speaking throughout the trial. Later, he would explain this further among the accusations against him.

Before defending himself against the official charges, Socrates thought it important to defend himself against accusations that contributed to his being brought to trial. One accusation was that he busied himself studying things in the sky and below the earth (Plato 23). Socrates invited the jury and his prosecutors to present evidence of this  that he had spoken about such scientific matters.

He continued to state that this is a lie, claiming he knew nothing nor did he attempt to know anything about scientific wisdom concerning the world. He also did not teach these to others. His evidence was that he did not charge any fee.

Another accusation of him stemmed from so long ago, he claimed. He stated it difficult to deal with this accusation since his enemies would speak to others, often at an age when they were easiest to influence. Socrates argued that they won their case by default as there was no defense (Plato 22). This accusation was of him making the worse argument seem the stronger, a trait common of sophists.

Socrates explained that the God of Delphi through the Delphic oracle, a seer who received the gods messages, claimed him wise. Puzzled by this proclamation, Socrates sought men who were considered wise in order to understand. He questioned politicians, poets, and craftsmen in this pursuit and recognized that they were not at all very wise as they claimed to be.

Socrates recognized that he must be wiser if only because he knows that he knows nothing while the wise men he interviewed thought they know something. Socrates thought it his duty to expose their falsehoods through his method of question, which produced contempt from these wise people. He cites this as the reason for his being put to trial.

Sophists were professionals who taught argument skills useful in any situation, but especially in law, for a price (Athabasca 15). The author gave an example of how politicians frame their arguments. They do so by suppressing important facts, arguing with a less informed or less intelligent person, attacking the opponents reputation instead of his argument, and confusing the opponent with language and words.

Socrates was being accused of sophistry, of exploiting peoples weaknesses and ignorance to manipulate their opinions. Not only did he deny the accusations against him, Socrates also showed that they cannot be true. First, he distinguished himself from the sophists claiming he does not charge fees and merely seeks the truth.

Next he had the audience examine how he came to be known as a sophist  through peoples misunderstanding of his method of truth-seeking. Socrates would question people known to be wise in their field in a way that revealed that they were not really experts. He realized that these people think they know something when in fact they do not. By this method, the people he angered accused him of sophistry.

Unlike the sophists though, who promoted skills in argumentation, Socrates claimed to only seek wisdom. He would admit that he does not know everything while others would delude themselves their knowledge. He explained this to illustrate his motives with his manner.

The youth of Athens took to imitating Socrates method, resulting in more people being ridiculed. These embarrassed people blamed Socrates for the behavior of the youth. Socrates defended himself by stating that he did not teach the youth in exchange for fees and that they acted of their own free will, thus he cannot be held responsible for their actions.

Charges Against Socrates by Meletus

Socrates was brought to court after charges were made against him by Meletus. Meletus is one of many whom Socrates, in his usual perch in the marketplace, questioned and revealed to be not so knowledgeable about his field. It is Meletus who charged and persecuted Socrates in this trial.

The charges against Socrates were that he studied things concerning the earth and the sky, corrupted young minds with false wisdom and believed in the gods of Athens but in other spiritual things.

For corrupting the youths minds, Socrates showed that this cannot be true. He did this by questioning Meletus in his usual method. Socrates claimed Meletus was unreasonable by making this accusation.

He accused Meletus of acting frivolously about serious things, of being irresponsible in bringing Socrates to court, and of pretending to care about the welfare of the young people. Socrates presented his counter-assessments towards these in reverse order, showing the last argument refuting the next.

Socrates showed, through questioning Meletus, that Meletus was not really concerned about the welfare of the youth despite claiming to be so. Socrates asked him questions that led to the conclusion that Meletus claimed only Socrates out of everyone present in the court corrupted the minds of the youth.

Socrates countered this accusation with a metaphor concerning horses  that not all men improve horses. One or only a few improves them. He concluded on this note that Meletus was indifferent with the welfare of the youth and gave no thought whatsoever to the subject.

Next, Socrates showed that it is not possible that he willingly corrupts the youths minds. He stated that it is either he does not corrupt their minds, or he does so unwillingly. He claimed that corrupting the youths minds unwillingly was not grounds for bringing him to court.

The solution to this would simply be to instruct and exhort him, not to punish him. Socrates claimed that if Meletus did think that Socrates was teaching the wrong ideas to the youth, Meletus did not seek Socrates out to instruct him.

In conclusion to his defense on corrupting the youths mind, Socrates stated that Meletus was frivolous, accusing Socrates of corrupting those who, of their own free will, follow him about.

For his defense against the accusation of not believing in their gods, Socrates showed that this too cannot be true. He first asked Meletus to clarify the charges against him.

Socrates pointed out that Meletus meant that Socrates did not believe in gods at all, instead of his accusation that Socrates did not believe in the same gods. Meletus contradicted his own charges against Socrates when he accused Socrates of not believing in the gods but believing in their actions.

Socrates stated that it is impossible not to believe in entities actions and not believe in the entities themselves! He gave examples of other beings besides gods, such as horses, flute players, and spirits, to further illustrate this point.

It is here that the unofficial accusations against Socrates that he mentioned and defended himself against before were important to note, because he believed the official charges against him were unjust. They were merely used to put him to trial. Socrates claimed that the real reason these men, Meletus and the others, hated him for embarrassing them before, which is not against the law.

The Courts Verdict and Socrates Response

In the end, the jury voted by a small margin a verdict of guilty against Socrates and Meletus proposed the death penalty. In counter assessment, Socrates did not propose an alternative form of punishment for himself but gave an account of what penalty he deserves.

Because he believed that he occupied himself with discouraging the youth from pursuing selfish ambitions and urged them instead toward mental excellence, he stated that he should deserve a reward instead of a penalty.

Socrates excused what would seem a joke to the jury and claimed he cannot give an appropriate penalty for himself since he simply does not believe he wronged anybody intentionally and claimed also that because of this, penalties the jury would consider to be appropriate would be unjust to him.

He believed people cannot harm themselves knowingly. Thus, he stated that imprisonment and banishment would be pointless penalties for him since he considers it his duty to God that he pursue his philosophical lifestyle.

He added that he would accept the death penalty because he did not know if death would be harmful to him. Lastly, Socrates stated that if he were to pay a fee as penalty, he suggested it be at one hundred drachmae. One hundred drachmae was small to others, but to a poor man as Socrates, it would be sufficient.

After his assessment, the jury voted again and gave him the sentence of death, to which Socrates stated that he does not resent for at seventy he should not.

Works Cited

Athabasca, University. Philosophy 231  Introduction to Philosophy-West and East. Study Guide (2000): 14-19. Print.

Plato. The Trial and Death of Socrates: Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Death Scene from Phaedo. Trans. G. M. A. Grube. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Pub, 2000. Print.

In both of Plato’s works Apology, and Crito, Plato portrays his mentor, Socrates, as he goes through trial, and thereafter in which he refuses to escape his punishment. In ancient Athens Socrates is on trial for corrupting the youth, which in reality is a crime that he did not commit. During the trial Socrates gives an incredible speech on how his whole life he’s only sought virtue and in his elder years the only thing that he’s really known is that there are things he does not know. After being found guilty Socrates was given a chance to propose a less harsh punishment than death but rather he decided to jest and propose almost humorous suggestions which he knew would force the verdict to fall on his punishment. Being sentenced to death ends Plato’s Apology.

In Plato’s Crito, a friend tries to coax Socrates to escape but Socrates goes to explain how it would be unjust for him to escape his punishment laid upon him by Athens. Socrates understands the moral fabric that is involved with fleeing what the court has ordered. Should Socrates escape, he knows that he would be attempting to destroy Athens and her laws to the extent that he can, and in that regard decides to go through with the execution. In the Crito, Socrates rightfully determines it would be unjust for him to escape and destroy Athens and her laws to the extent that he can, through the betrayal of an agreement to conform to the laws and processes of society.

Socrates in his argument to Crito explains that Athens is similar to that of a father and in being so plays a similar role to that of a parent. Socrates specifically goes on to say, “Now with regard to your father, justice was not equal for you, so that you didn’t also do in return whatever you suffered…” (Crito 109). In saying this, Socrates argues that Athens is similar to a father in the way in the role of providing. Just as a Father provides everything that his children may need, such is also true with Athens for it’s citizens and society has given an implied law to follow the rules of said parent for that reason. He makes apparent that to break the rules of Athens, similar to the way someone would go against a parent, is unjust, and therefore; he can not go through with it. Furthermore, Socrates even gives Athens an almost authoritative power as he says, “…that if it leads to war [a decision made by a parent] war to be wounded or killed, this must be done?” (Crito 109). He asserts that just like a parent if Athens ever needs or requests something that then it is an obligation to the citizen to go through in attempts to satisfy their city-state. Society implies an agreement to obey a parent since they are the ones that make sure you get what you need. This agreement to obey parents gives structure to society, and therefore is necessary and Socrates agrees it would be unjust to go against that foundation and ultimately harm Athens.

The appeal of citizenship plays a large role in why Socrates also deems it to be unjust to escape his punishment. Although he is an innocent man, and the court has wrongly convicted him of something he didn’t do it is still his duty to obey the laws set in place. Socrates knows the laws and agrees with them as well as he says, “So vehemently were you in choosing us and agreeing to be governed in accordance with us that you also had children in it, as though the city was satisfactory to you” (Crito 110). Socrates says that since he is a citizen and enjoys the benefits of such that he has an unspoken agreement to abide by the laws set in place. In the same token, he has agreed to follow the laws of Athens and personally deems that the punishment put in place for him by his peers was justified. In this case, the court had a bad ruling but was not at fault for their decision. It may have been unjust to be convicted for something he did not do; nevertheless, he has agreed to obey by being a citizen and will accept his punishment. Now that Crito has offered to help Socrates evade the laws and present an opportunity to harm Athens, Socrates realizes he does not want to inflict any wounds he could possibly cause, and in turn will choose not to do so to the extent that he can. In addition, going against something he has ultimately agreed to in some form would be unjust and so he will not follow through.

Socrates is just in his decision to take his punishment inflicted upon him. First off, Crito at the beginning of the work is very insistent on persuading Socrates to escape. The initial speech given by Crito is it would be unjust to let Athens execute him since he is an innocent man, but when Socrates brings up that laws sometimes fails, Crito replies, “I do not blame them”(Crito 109). When Crito brings up the argument that his reputation would be on the line if people were to find out he didn’t help Socrates to escape, Socrates concludes that the truth is often distant to what most people think. When said that the morals conquer over the majority’s though and asked if this was a noble point, Crito replied with, “nobly”(Crito 106). Every advancement that was made by the opposing argument was met with a conclusion that persuaded Crito over to Socrates’ line of thought. This persuasion offered a new perspective that Crito then adopted which strengthens the ideals that Socrates is making to prove that escaping is unjust.

The analogy that compares Athens to a parent is also a very fortified foundation to his argument. Even in modern day time, going against the people that gave you birth, fed you, raised you, and gave you a multitude of privileges is highly unethical as deemed by society. The judicial system even recognizes that people who are under the age of 18 are considered minors and are considered an extension of their parents. This law asserts that there needs to be an agreement to obey one’s parents. It is also true that under certain situations that one may be considered an independent. The difference in the two is the agreement made. For those who agree with this law set in by society, those who are under the age of 18 will enjoy all of the benefits that parents have to offer. Those who do not, will not enjoy those same benefits. Some would argue that for those with no parents that there would be no option but to become an independent, but in the U.S. there are a plethora of programs that allow those without certain privileges the same rights. For Socrates to do turn his back on the agreement that he made with Athens after he had already indulged in the benefits that were bestowed him would be treachery. Since he agreed to receive the benefits of Athens it implies that he also agreed to follow its laws, and to now stop following law system would be unjust, and therefore will not escape.

In another modern day example the same rules apply. As a citizen of the United States of America you are expected to follow the rules instilled by the government. Since we as citizens go to school, use transportation, accept protection by the government, and enjoy similar privileges we are signing an unspoken agreement to follow the law. Just as you walk into a restaurant and order a sandwich. Nothing is verbally stated by accepting the sandwich that you also agree to pay; however, due to the common practices of society this is implied to be the laws to follow. It would be implied that if you did not understand the processes of the restaurant, or even the general way in which society works that you would not use the facility. Accepting a practice set in by society means that you will follow along with same insinuated processes of that practice. It depends on the culture and situation and Socrates understands in his particular situation that his government is requesting him to conform to its policies and therefore realizes it would be unjust for him disregard this to any extent.

Some may argue that even though Socrates had accepted to follow suit with the laws set in place, that it would be unjust for him to follow through with laws that may have been carried out wrongly. In this instance, the law has failed to prove Socrates an innocent man, and so some could say he didn’t ‘agree’ to follow with the process of wrong conviction. This is however untrue since Socrates thinks that the laws set in by Athens are just. Never did he say that they were perfect in all regards and that every process has no room for failure in its intended outcome, but he still considers them just. Although Socrates was tried for something he did not do, the verdict just happened to reach an outcome that may not be just. Although the final conclusion of the jury may not have been just in the narrow sense of whether or not he committed the crime, the steps taken to reach that conclusion were just and therefore the final verdict laid upon him was at no fault of the jury. The agreement made was that he would follow the laws; the trial was one of the laws, and carried out justly. This assertion concludes that even though he was wrongly accused and convicted, Socrates agreed to carry out the judicial process, and so must comply with the final decision made even if it may have been decided outside the realm of truth.

Some might even argue that it would be unjust for Socrates to leave his kids without a Father. They might say the execution brought forth by Athens would render them helpless. To challenge this, no matter what Socrates does he would have to leave his kids, and the better solution would be death. If Socrates was exiled then his children wouldn’t join him because he would want them to live in the benefits that Athens provides. If he is executed that aspect of shame wouldn’t be put on his family as hard as if he were to be a coward and flee. Lastly, he would have friends in Athens in which to take care of his kids. Socrates took the best route possible considering the alternatives.

In Plato’s Crito, Socrates knows that escaping would be unjust as it is similar to the betrayal of a parent, and that he would be breaking the law of his beloved home in addition to disrespecting that culture that he has enjoyed for the entirety of his life. It is understood that morals overcome many other abstract things and to show a foundation of ethics fortify the character of Socrates. To place your values above life itself is the portrayal of true character, and as a result has allowed Socrates to inspire many audiences through the works of Plato.

There is a reason we question the things around us, as we are naturally curious people. Life is so much more than just being on earth, life is about finding and creating yourself, it is creating bonds between people and things. We are constantly searching for something to make us feel like life is worth living, that we have something to offer the world. Socrates believed that “the unexamined life is not worth living”1 and this is what he taught to his pupils. Socrates’s “Apology” is his defense against the court of Athens and his attempt at saving himself from being convicted for false accusations.

Socrates begins by telling a story about a man named Chaerephon who questioned the Oracle of Delphi if there was anyone wiser than Socrates, to which the oracle replies that there was not.2 Puzzled upon hearing this news, Socrates decides to test the Oracle’s theory by interviewing people that were deemed wise by others such as poets, politicians and craftsmen. The poets, although they had great work, could not explain the stories behind their craft. Next, he interviewed the politicians, who were very ignorant and seemed to think that they could speak intelligently about topics. Lastly, Socrates interviewed craftsmen, who also had great craft skills, but felt that because they excelled in one area, they could talk about everything else. After interviewing more people, Socrates realized that the higher the title ranking, the less wise people were. People of Athens were not pleased with his discovery and disliked him because he was proving authority figures unwise. Despite a collective hatred from the town’s people, Socrates continued to believe that it was his duty to teach people who thought they were wise that they actually were not.

Socrates claims “the unexamined life is not worth living” in his defense, stating: For if I tell you that this would be a disobedience to a divine command, and therefore that I cannot hold my tongue, you will not believe that I am serious; and if I say again that the greatest good of man is daily to converse about virtue, and all that concerning which you hear me examining myself and others, and that the life which is unexamined is not worth living – that you are still less likely to believe.

This ties into the statement about the Oracle. Socrates could have chosen to believe that he was indeed the smartest person because someone told him so, but he decided to question what was said. He is saying that only we can try to know ourselves and decide if our lives have any meaning or value. It is up to us to question the world and ourselves, or we will act without abandon. We will not be able to tell the difference between good decisions and bad decisions.

The above quote can have many different meanings to many different people, but this quote is understood as you can either let people make decisions for you or you can make the decisions for yourself. Socrates is saying to learn and understand what we are taught, but to also think about it and try to understand it on a deeper level. Hence, Critical Thinking, which makes us think long and hard about what we are learning in order to fully grasp the concept. If one does not think critically, the impact can be quite different. Thinking and questioning things around us allow us to have a deeper understanding of our world, how we function as human beings, what our roles as people are on the Earth.