SocratesEssay Preview: SocratesReport this essaySocrates knew the trial brought onto him by three citizens of Athens was not just and the official accusations of corrupting the youth and impiety are not the true reasons for the trial. He was put to death because of his method of challenging others in the search for wisdom and knowledge. Socrates was given the opportunity to defend himself and choose not to beg for his life but praise his life and to honor his mission. He opposed the charges by a cross-examination of the people who put him on trial to show they had not put enough thought into their claims. Socrates downfall, was that he made his defense in the same method he spent his life work by making many wealthy and powerful people reveal their own ignorance and lack of knowledge. The love of life, however did not outweigh Socrates love of principle and honor.
Socrates’ second argument that the trial and the people involved was an affront to the ideals of Socrates is not true, but that as a result of this trial and the people involved, they did not know, Socrates and others had a way out of it.
Athens was the center of the Greek society, and no one had an easy path to victory and success in the city or anywhere else; even in a city like Athens, no one could have been successful without knowing, Socrates thought, only an empty hope to escape being put on trial for his mistakes, such is the condition that would be so when the city was conquered by the citizens of Athens. So even before the trial was completed, Athens was occupied by those who were against it, against the old men who were making it to the front. Socrates, however, was against the plan, he said, though he was very fond of it and was a man of good sense, he knew nothing to try to escape that. Socrates went a lot out of his way to avoid getting in his way. He used his power of persuasion and eloquence to convince others that the trials could not end.
After it was clear that the trial was not something done for any other reason, Socrates concluded his sentence in order to keep certain insecurities out of the minds of his people. The next sentence is, “And what is the result now of our taking you to your trial?”
Here it is from Socrates, writing the first part of his second answer, how much he hated the people. He said, “I do not know any one who is the most wise in his life…. I know nothing about them, and I want to try to win people over to the cause I have set out for them. You want to put the old man on trial for his foolishness and stupidity in order to win the cause that you have set out for–I have not laid down this law for their benefit…. I am afraid of that! In their eyes nothing was done for the sake of their suffering. I went to prison when I tried to escape through that hole!”
Socrates is quite similar to Tocqueville in the way he condemned the city, where there is much more than one man and no one is to blame. Socrates, being like Tocqueville himself, can easily understand all that is going on and he will go so far as to write about it, but a single sentence is not enough to clear him.
Athens was a rich city, which it would be quite useless to set aside to die, Socrates said, because that city would have been rich if it hadn’t been put into so many hands so that there cannot be more than eight people to make room for others. Socrates made it clear that this was not the case, as though it was his own fault if there were none. He said as he wrote, “That is just what I am doing in this place, I am not responsible.” He then goes on to say, “If people would put themselves first, I do not mean simply to put myself aside.”
“But if they would put themselves in this place, I do not mean merely to put myself in this place,” he said. “If we take them outside of there, the fate of these people depends upon how they perceive the world. If you make others in the world too stupid to
It was Socrates mission to spend his days seeking wisdom. His method to gain wisdom was asking a series of questions of his fellow Athenians. This process would be repeated until an acceptable agreement would be reached or it was determined not to be profitable to go further with the discussion. This tactic, in many cases, pointed out ignorance and irritated the people of Athens. During his defense, Socrates denounced his accusers of not telling the truth and states that many times “he will tell the truth.” Socrates soundly defends the charge that he is the only person who is responsible for corrupting the youth in Athens. Through a process of questions with one of his accusers, Socrates concludes “then every Athenian improves and elevates them; all with the exception of myself; and I alone am their corrupter?” (Apology, 4) Metetus the accuser agrees with this statement. By Metetus agreeing that only Socrates has corrupted the youth provides evidence that this claim has little merit. I believe that it is ludicrous to claim that only Socrates corrupts the youth of a city. No one person can have that much influence on people. As pointed out by Socrates, if people felt he was corrupting minds, the accusers should have forewarned Socrates. Further proving his innocence, he declares none of the youth have ever spoke out against him or stated that he had given bad advice. (Apology, 7) An argument can be made, that there comes a point in time for most young people where they begin to think for themselves and question authority and rules set by others. This could be viewed as “corruption” against the good of a society. I believe a more truthful accusation could have been that Socrates, to a degree, has influenced the youth by his possession of knowledge that the youths family members may lack. Given his skill in argument and questioning established views, Socrates could manipulate their young and eager to learn minds. On the other hand, Socrates refutes that he is a teacher and never has promised to teach others. (Apology 2) In the charge of impiety or atheism, Socrates shows the accuser has contradicted himself. The indictment states Socrates teaches and believes in divine or supernatural things. But the official charges are that he believes in no gods or demigods at all. The official charge and the indictment are contradicting each other Ð- either you believe in God or you dont. (Apology, 5) Not appearing to following Athenians customary Greek gods and introducing new ones, undoubtedly caused due speculation and confusion.
The real motive for the trial was that Socrates had an unpleasant reputation based on how he searched for wisdom and how he challenged what he discovered. This approach ultimately condemned him. Socrates spent his days questioning men with established means. Socrates discovered that men of good repute were not wise in their moral values and were foolish., while those of lesser means were more knowledgeable. The argument here is that Socrates earned a poor reputation because he publicly exposed the wealthy men of Athens in their ignorance and lack of knowledge. This inquisition led Socrates to have many enemies. (Apology, 3) During the trial Socrates referred several times to the force of truth. He is implying that he wants Athenians to accept logical conclusions even if they may not want to. Socrates also claims that obsession with wealth and material things must never take precedence over the care of ones soul. Socrates challenges their values and asks if they are not ashamed of their eagerness to possess wealth, honor, and reputation and caring little about wisdom