Socrates’ Apology

Socrates’ Apology

Socrates is a philosopher from Athens who was charged by two crimes; the crime of failure to recognize the god that the state recognized, and the crime of corrupting the youths. He introduced a new deity different from the one the Athenians knew. He was finally executed in 399 BC after a trial in court.

Talking of Socrates’ Apology would sound as if he was sorry and apologizes for the crimes that he was charged. It, however, is not the case here; the Apology here means the dialogue that was between Socrates and his accusers in defense to himself. In fact, from the nature of the conversation, the philosopher is never sorry for the crimes, he works hard to let people know that he is the one on the right side and his accusers on the wrong side. From the many dialogues with his accusers, his conversations with Meletus is the one that is featured and mainly tells us who Socrates was.

Socrates turns out to be so influential to the youths and a great enemy to those he was fighting. He explained that he had no experience with the justice that the law courts offer. Socrates instead said that he would not speak according to the way the courts will expect him to speak; he will speak with honesty and with directness. He, even at some point, justified his actions comes from a prophecy by the oracle at Delphi that claimed he was wiser than all other men. These activities made the youth admire him so much. The court systems at the time had a justice that was not justice, and it is the reason Socrates did not want to listen to the jury.

The Apology starts with Socrates speaking to the jury of about 500 men asking them if the oratory speeches had convinced them by Lycon, Anytus, and Meletus, who were the chief accusers. These accusers represented the interests of politicians and artisans, scholars, rhetoricians, and poets. He asked the jury not to judge him by the oratory skills of his accusers. They should instead judge him by the truth that is found in the reality of his statements. He promises not to use harsh and sophisticated language that is not easy to understand but will use the common Greek language that everyone understands.

The accusations stated that Socrates was found with blasphemy against the pantheon of Athens and by corrupting the youths through teaching them to doubt the status quo. In his defense removes the claim that he is wise. The pronouncement of him being more sensible than any man is told that the oracle had made the pronouncement after being asked by Chaerephon, who has a reputation of being impetuous. He eliminated the claim because he knew that it is against the nature of the Oracle to lie. He, therefore, questioned everyone who appeared to be wise so that he could take the person as evidence to the Oracle. He tested the minds of every class of people but found no one who was knowledgeable, though the men thought they were wise both by people and themselves. His defense to show respect to the Oracle was to refute the claim of himself being wiser.

On the case about corrupting the youths, he said that children had little to do with their time, thus following him around, studying his approach to intellectual criticism with other intellectuals. They would then imitate his method of questioning. He, therefore, denied the charges of corrupting the youths.

The whole Socratic dialogue happens in three phases; the permissible self-defense, the decision of the panel, and the punishment of the court of law.He even mentioned that those who fear death show their ignorance; death might be something good, yet people fear it as though it were evil. He also confessed to devote his obedience more to the Delphic god than to the human authority. Human authority does not supersede human power, and that is his reason for defiance of social influence. Socrates even says provocatively to the court that he has a duty as an unpaid teacher to the Athenian citizens to teach them morality. The mission, he says, was given to him by the Oracle, and forbids him to be unethical in his acting. He concludes his defense by a reminder to the judges that he shall not go for emotive speeches and arguments. He shall not cry publicly for regrets, and that by no means shall his sons appear in court to pathetically sway the judges for a fair trial. He boasts of his lack of fear for death and that he shall firmly act according to religious requirements.

Socrates was judged guilty by a narrow margin of juries’ votes, which is not mentioned. The contention was between a death penalty and just a monetary fine, but most of the tribunals voted for the death penalty. The punishment and the judgment were provoked by the kind of speech that Socrates used in addressing the jury. He prophesies that his death would cause the youths to awaken and take over his place as a social activist fighting for morality in Athens. He thought that death was a good thing to him because it would make him exist in the souls of many people and influence them to more of what he did. He announces to the court that he bears no grudge either to his accusers, nor the jury that had made the verdict. He also allows the punishment of his three sons if they would value material things more than virtuous living and if they would become prideful.

Socrates’ judgment was more emotive than a fair decision, and he deserved a better hearing than the one he was given. On the other hand, he received what he called for through the talks that mainly featured him, proving to others that he was the right one. He was not polite in his language, and this angered the jurors.

Work Cited

Leibowitz, David M. The Ironic Defense of Socrates: Plato’s Apology. Cambridge University Press, 2010.