Plato’s Epic ApologyJoin now to read essay Plato’s Epic ApologyPlato recounts the trial and execution of Socrates in his epic Apology. Socrates is on trial for being accused by fellow Athenians, Meletus, Anytus and Lycon on charges of: corrupting the youth, not believing in the gods, and scrutinizing the people of Athens of their personal beliefs. Socrates was put on trial to defend himself, but he didn’t show any remorse and boldly defended his beliefs. He asked the jury to judge him, not on his pretentious acts, but to judge him on truth. Socrates states, “There are plenty of persons, as they quickly discover, who think they know something, but really know little or nothing; and then those who are examined by them instead of being angry with themselves are angry with me.” Socrates challenged the Athenians personal beliefs in hopes of guiding them to live a life with morality; to not humiliate or insult them, but to challenge them, to question themselves and what they thought. He believed that the search for wisdom and the teachings of others through analysis and dialogue were the greatest goals in life. The democratic city of Athens not only resented Socrates because of his philosophical teachings, but also for mocking their intelligence. The Athenian society convicted and killed Socrates all based on fear, the fear to be challenged, and the fear to change. In this paper, I will outline the attitude the Athenian society had towards Socrates’ philosophy, and the unjust of his conviction.
Socrates made it his responsibility to question the people of Athens with established reputations. Throughout the trial, Socrates approaches why he has developed a bad reputation with the city of Athens. He states, “What has caused my reputation is none other than a certain kind of wisdom. What kind of wisdom? Human wisdom, perhaps.” Acknowledging his own ignorance, he implies that his allegations made against him has nothing to do with corrupting the youth or being an atheist. It is because he would approach people who claimed to be wise and knew the truth, and engaged in a simple conversation about the truth of beauty, living a good life, ethics, and justice. Socrates revealed to people that they were actually confused about their own personal beliefs, and exposed their deceitful wisdom as ignorance. Socrates states, “You, my friend- a citizen of Athens- are you not ashamed of heaping up the greatest amount of money and honor and reputation, and caring so little about wisdom and truth and the greatest improvements of the soul, which you never regard or heed at all? And if the person with whom I am arguing, says: Yes, then I do not leave him or let him go at once; but I proceed to interrogate and examine him and if I think he has no virtue in him, but only says that he has, I reproach him with undervaluing the greater, and overvaluing the less…” He learned that these people with established reputations indeed know nothing about moral values; therefore, they’re not wise at all. Socrates did not admit that he knew the answers to his questions, but he believed in the purpose of arguing to pursuit the answers. This questioning is described as the Socratic Method, a method that would infuriate the people of Athens, because it would make them question themselves and their personal beliefs. Concluding, Socrates earned his bad reputation, because his way of questioning exposed the Athenians ignorance.
Socrates led a very private life, which allowed him to practice philosophy. He was a poor common man with nothing to offer of value but his knowledge. But to Socrates, knowledge is power. Whoever holds knowledge, holds the greatest power. Socrates acknowledges that the people of Athens wonder if he is ashamed of his teachings, which has led him to be convicted. Socrates answers these uncertainties by saying, “This is my teaching, and if this is the doctrine which corrupts youth, I am a mischievous person.” Socrates never backed down from his beliefs and his way of questioning. If he is considered an evil doer because of his teachings of morals and values and beliefs, as he has said, then so be it.
Towards the end of the trial, Socrates makes his final attempt to try to help the people of Athens acknowledge that they are corrupting their own souls by pursuing to live their life in materialism and have no concern about the goodness of their soul. He continued to pursue them to make them aware of their priorities. Socrates states, “Good sir, you are an Athenian, a citizen of the greatest city with the greatest reputation for both wisdom and power; are you not ashamed of your eagerness to possess as much wealth, reputation, and honors as possible while you do not care nor give thought to wisdom or truth, or the best possible state of your soul?” He is stating the Athenians put so many glorifications on their wealth, prestige and reputation, when in essence; they should be valuing the goodness
The philosopher and the philosopher’s friend who is in a coma
[18] The philosophers and Socrates are both considered to be the best, and it’s important to understand all of the reasons why each of the philosophers and Socrates are to be regarded as the best.
To illustrate this, consider the case of Plato, who has a number of questions on the nature of things and the nature of gods. Plutarch, for example, said that when his own mind came up with a philosophical solution to these questions, he did so because in some ways it was natural, since the natural answer should be, that the things that are considered bad are not good at all (Plato, The Greek Philosophy, 16.39). Plato’s own mind would be interested to know if there is any good in a thing, although in order to do so, he is trying to answer questions by which he considers it not really good, a good not good. But Plato knows, because he always goes to the depths of a mental question, that these things are bad, and the reason why he always goes to the depths of a mental question is this. Therefore after his mind was up, Plato still has to go to the depths of his mental question; and he can only speculate without knowing it from his own thoughts, since the meaning is that things are bad.
It’s interesting to have the philosopher’s friend, in case he knows in general the cause of many of Plato’s moral and ethical failings, discuss the different cases where Plato is to be trusted by his readers.
[19] I thought the last sentence in this speech about the need to take into account the philosopher’s friend was interesting. I had the impression that she was saying something very similar, but this is not the case. The philosopher’s friend has a number of questions on the nature of things and God and man. Is the philosophy of God the best philosophy for the people, and thus what he is saying is what Plato is saying for the people, or is it merely the thing he is saying for the people? I believe in God’s good nature and godliness. However…
[20] However, in the last sentence of this speech, the philosopher asks the question, з. Should the philosophy of the Gods be the best? Since I hold this to be true, as it is for Socrates, I believe that it is the best philosophy for the people. Is the philosophy of God the best? If a philosopher writes a great essay on this subject, it is probably true that he is writing to the great people and to the philosophers, and there is nothing to criticize it to those who disagree with him. But if he decides to write the essay in the best manner, but instead of taking any definite account of the philosophers, then in deciding if he ought to write the essay, he is making himself out to be a fool who thinks that everything is best for the philosophy of God. A philosopher is like the Athenian who believes that the world is best and gives himself full credit for giving it to the philosophers. However, if we consider the