Socrates defended himself well during the trial. I do not think that Socrates was guilty for anything. He was accused by Meletus for "corrupting the young”. However, there was no evidence of this. Socrates mentioned that there was no youth to testify that they were corrupted by him.
In the ancient society of Athens, philosophers, sophists, and scholars were perceived as arrogant, pompous individuals whose teachings challenged the political and social principles of Athens. At this time the Athenians had gone through a transition from leading in complete supremacy to their ruinous decline by the defeat of Sparta and its allies in the Peloponnesian War. This defeat left them vulnerable and scared for what was to come in the rebuilding of their polis. In 399 BC a period of when Athens attempted to stabilize and recover, the philosopher Socrates was tried and executed consequently due to his suspicions of corrupting the youth through non traditional, philosophical, and anti-democratic teachings, which ultimately threatened the Athenian democracy once more.
Since the day of the judgment between Athens and Socrates in 399 year B.C. many historians, philosophers, and students wonder to know whether Socrates was Guilty. Philosopher was accused in corrupting the youth, not believing in the recognized gods and introducing new divinities and in the rejection of civic life in democratic society. It is very difficult to answer on this question, may be even impossible. In my opinion, there are three types of people: 1.
Socrates was accused of corrupting the minds of the youth and influencing them to believe in the supernatural phenomenon of his own beliefs. Socrates did not “corrupt” the adolescent of Athens. He merely changed them to think differently. Not necessarily differently but to think for themselves and to not always trust in what others say. I don’t believe Socrates was guilty.
Socrates claims that he did not consciously corrupt the youth of Athens, and he gives many reasons why he is not at fault for these actions. In his defense to the jury, he tells them that by looking at the facts, they will see Meletus is accusing him of something that is not true. The way Socrates defends himself is well-thought out and logical. He ask Meletus a serious of questions and Meletus answers, Socrates then moves on to the next question to support his claim.
While defending himself, Socrates told the jury that matters of life and death come secondary to matters of justice, stating, “If you suppose that a man…should take into account the danger of living and dying...but whether his actions are just or unjust, and the deeds of a good man or a bad.” It is here that Socrates stated that if he had a duty to the gods to die and the jury acquitted him, there would be injustice on their part. Socrates wanted to act justly no matter the circumstances and wanted the jury to do the same thing, that justice ultimately would be to acquit Socrates as he harmed no youth and believed in the gods, making the charges false. Finally, after a vote, Socrates was found guilty with only a thirty-vote margin. He was then invited by Meletus to provide an alternative punishment to the death penalty, Socrates asked, “Is it not clear that it should be whatever I am worthy of?” Socrates, true to himself, desired only a just punishment, and at the end, he accepted his fate knowing that death has caught up to a seventy-year-old man and knew following the law of the polis was ultimately just.
Ultimately, Socrates is put to death because he attempts to transcend the parochial Athenian worldview in search of more universal truth. This is inherently threatening to the people of Athens who conceptualize a specific realm of appropriate questioning. (I would say Socrates-like questioning would be threatening to any society, including ours) Since Socrates is not fully in line with this bubble, the Athenian people project that "if you are not fully with us, you must be against us;" and therefore, Socrates is worthy of death. Plato's writings in The Symposium and The Republic helps us understand this dynamic In The Symposium, Socrates explains love in opposition to the way other Greek thinkers understood Eros.
Assuming that nobody wants to become corrupted, it follows that no one would knowingly corrupt those who they associate with. And because Socrates associates primarily with the youth of Athens, he would never knowingly corrupt them. Socrates was an outstanding of the Greek civilization. He defended himself against allegations of impiety and corruption of Athens youth. On the contrary, he provided strong arguments for his own defense
Making enemies and becoming the topic of conversation, the Athenians began to view Socrates as a threat to their beliefs and way of life and sought to end it. In order to end this, Socrates was accused of blasphemy (Mod1SlideC7). Socrates’s accusers took him to court and after Socrates did not play their game by asking to be sent into exile, and in the end, he was sentenced to death. After reading the textbook and Plato’s writing influenced by Socrates, I realized that in the period of his life Socrates was indeed truly a threat to the Athens society, because he looked for answers that no one else bothered to find which challenged their culture.
’YOU KNOW NOTHING JON SNOW! ’’ * In the Apology by Platon, the trial of Socrates is presented. Through the text, we learn how Socrates defenses himself against the accusations and more importantly we learn the principles of him.
He was no man to be a political figure and did not want any light shined towards him. Socrates was sent to trial for what was said to be by the people of Athens as corrupting the youth moreover believing in other gods nevertheless of the gods of the city of Athens. In the trial,
Meletus wants Socrates to be executed because Meletus has crossed Socrates at some point in time before the trail. Socrates accuses of Meletus of breaking his oath by lying to the courts. I learned that before the trail, the jury has an opinion upon one-man’s thoughts with no concrete visual evidence towards the defendant. Socrates did not have visual evidence, only the accusers that wanted the “wise” man convicted. The 21st Century Judicial system is very different than the Athenian period Judicial period.
I found the story of Socrates trial, on pages 43-46, to be incredible. I always knew that history was full of surprises and amazing events. However, I had no idea that Athens had such a robust debate environment at 399 B.C.E. It seems like Athens was dealing with the same kind of political corruption that we, in modern society, must face in our politics today. It really proves the saying, “history repeats itself.”
The charges brought against the philosopher had nothing to do with true crime like we understand it today. He did not commit any physical or financial harm to anybody. Socrates insulted and angered many people more than any “legitimate” offense ever could. He said too many things that people around him did not like and could not forgive.
I believe that Socrates is innocent because he defends himself truthfully with effect. He uses sound arguments and he is passionate about philosophy. Socrates did nothing to gain in life and did not want a high social standing. Socrates is fair and uses correct methods of arguments by uncovering the
