Socrates Defense In Plato's Apology

Mina Mohamad

Professor Ian Reynolds

English 210

June 13, 2018

Socrates Defense

“Socrates is guilty of corrupting the young, and of not acknowledging the gods the city acknowledges” (Plato 654). In The Apology, by Plato, these were the accusations brought against Socrates during his trial in 399 B.C.E. The trial took place in central Athens in front of the three main accusers Meletus, Anytus, and Lycon, and a jury of 500 men. On the trial for his life, after the accusers’ statements, Socrates stated his long defense by expressing the preference for philosophy as the quest for truth over rhetoric that can be used to effectively persuade people without the truth. Basically, he reveals this judicial argument to justify the philosophical persuades

Then Socrates questioned, who improves the youth to which Meletus answer was every Athenians. As improvement is the opposite of corruption so stated that all Athenians improve the youth but how can only one person corrupt them? Socrates continued his defense in a philosophical manner he considers himself to be the wisest man on earth by referring to what oracle of Delphi said. Further, Socrates argues that to prove this claim he evaluated the wisdom of a poet, a politician, and an artisan. In his assessment, he found that although these people knew very little to nothing at all about their crafts, they considered themselves to be very wise whereas Socrates himself knew nothing and did not consider himself to be wise. In the Apology, he presented oracle of Delphi described him as the wisest man. So this gave him an upper hand, and he came to conclude that he is indeed the

However, the question is on how it was incorporated in this context and how it leads to the demise of Socrates. Socrates liked, almost enjoyed, to refute his slanderers by continuously asking questions to a point that it leads his respondents to contradict. Hence, he came to conclude that the person did not know what he had claimed. Besides, Socrates often did this publicly, as is the case in The Apology, to important people, and leaders in society. This way of his was not at all appropriate for the setting of The Apology. It might have put across his points but it was done in an absolutely derogatory way, “ I don’t think it’s lawful for a better man to be harmed by worse ” (Plato 660). He did not only infuriate the accusers but the judges and audience too. It almost seems like Socrates did this intentionally, he knew deep down that this would indeed not win the votes of the jury and would potentially lead to his death. As a matter of fact, he even argued for his death. This all makes his arguments ineffective and unconvincing.

The proponents of The Apology might argue that it is indeed very much convincing as Socrates very logically analyzes his slanders and categorically refutes providing reasonable explanations. However, it is to be mentioned that his very dear disciple, Plato, has accounted for Socrates’ Apology. It can be argued that Plato’s account of the trial is not very