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. People who believe that Socrates was guilty and deserves the death penalty.
2. Who thought that Socrates was guilty, but there was no need to kill him.
3. People who support the Socrates ideas and believe that he was not guilty.
Each opinion is worthy of existence and is supported by historical facts, so which side should take the person - it depends entirely on the personal point of view of the individual. But at the same time it is worth to consider that Socrates was executed only by his own wish. The
…show more content…
Not believing in Gods
Socrates did not recognize the gods, which were generally accepted in Athens.
As it is known, in the community of that time some traditions and regulations were formed, and if person did not compliance them, this person acts against society. The charge was formulated as follows: "Socrates breaks the law not recognizing the gods, which recognizes the city, but recognizing the believing in some new genius" (literally "new demon"). So if in Athens laws was also traditions, and tradition was to believe in generally accepted gods, not believing in gods Socrates was breaking the law. (Modus Ponens)
Socrates is like Jesus: both of them did not believe in gods of that time and both were just speaking to society, but in those speeches were hidden the great idea. Like Jesus, Socrates chose to die for his idea, not surrender norms of the society. Both men had their students, who recorded their words during their life or after death. (Analogy)
Rejection of civic life in democratic
Socrates should remain in prison after evaluating Critos arguments although Socrates’s were stronger. I’ll begin with Crito’s argument and what makes them strong, and what doesn’t. Next, I’ll focus on Socrates arguments and what makes them good and what makes them weak, mainly his focus that living with a bad soul isn’t worth living when you have a bad soul. Crito gives Socrates three arguments.
In Apology, Socrates faces possible execution as he stands trial in front of his fellow Athenian men. This jury of men must decide whether Socrates has acted impiously against the gods and if he has corrupted the youth of Athens. Socrates claims in his defense that he wants to live a private life, away from public affairs and teachings in Athens. He instead wants to focus on self-examination and learning truths from those in Athens through inquiry. Socrates argues that "a [man] who really fights for justice must lead a private, not a public, life if [he] is to survive for even a short time" (32a).
Like many scapegoats, Socrates was blamed and hated for having a different outlook on life. He questioned the status quo of society creating an upheaval that Greek citizens felt they had to handle. In 399 B.C, Socrates was killed with hemlock because he corrupted society with his intense questioning. Due to his wisdom, Socrates became a scapegoat for the Greeks simply because they were not prepared to face the reality of knowledge (Fieser). Similarly, all scapegoats like Socrates are faced with blame, hatred, and punishments in order to keep society from realizing they are actually inferior.
Introduction The Apology was written by Plato, and relates Socrates’ defense at his trial on charges of corrupting the youth and impiety. Socrates argues that he is innocent of both charges. Plato reports the contents of three speeches delivered by Socrates in his own protection in court which has been arranged over him by the Athenian democrats and has terminated in the death sentence to the great philosopher. The word "apology" in a literal translation means "justification". Plato's purpose when writing "Apology" was to acquit posthumously Socrates from false accusation.
Socrates was a great philosopher of the Greek world. He was quite an atypical and distinctive person. Being different from all the other philosophers of the land, Socrates was teaching his students ideas totally out of the ordinary from what the society believed was right. As a result, he displeased many people so much that they decided to get rid of him. Socrates was put to trial, accused of spoiling the youth of Athens, tried and sentenced to death.
Socrates believes that justice benefits the just, but also benefits the city (other people) too. He is faced with a seemingly simple choice, escape Athens or remain in prison and be sentenced to death. Socrates’ central argument against escaping his circumstances is twofold. First, Socrates argues that “one must never do wrong.” (49b)
Socrates’s official new charge “asserts that Socrates does injustice by corrupting the young, and by not believing in the gods in whom the city believes, but in other daimonia that are novel” (24b, p. 73). By looking deeper into the dialogue of The Apology and Euthyphro, one can see how passionately Socrates strives to express to the Athenian people his innocence in teaching the youth and worshiping of the gods. Socrates maintains his innocence in teaching the youth for three reasons. Primarily, there is no proof or evidence from past examples in which Socrates has taught the youth because no one has come out and said so. Socrates brings up a valid point that his so-called ‘teachings’ haven’t changed over time and therefore if he is accused
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.
This is a complicated issue because every person has a different view when it comes to answering this question. Socrates believed that the law should be upheld and respected by everyone no matter what, while other people
Socrates sees himself as wiser than other men including the politicians, craftsmen, and poets because he did not go around thinking he knew what he did not know. As a result of this, his character reflected someone who saw himself as superior to others and instead of feeding that ego, he could have been a joined politics and have an influence on the Athenian democracy. If he had done this, people like Meletus and his later accusers would have taken his criticism in a positive way. Socrates has the right to criticize the democracy of Athens because, in his perspective, verdicts are passed in the court by jurors with respect to whoever seems good to him. The democracy of the people was biased because, even if a person was wrong in court, he would not receive the right punishment her deserved because of his relations with the jurors.
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
This is why his practices and teachings were always oral. As leaders grew upset with Socrates. He was charged on two accounts one for him with impiety denying the gods and introducing new ones and another for corrupting the youth. The penalty for his crimes was
In Ancient Greece, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle were all trying to figure out their view of how society should be and each had a slightly different version of their ideal version of the good life. The different versions of these philosophers are going up against the views of Ancient Greeks through the works of Plato’s Apology and Allegory of the Cave. In the Apology, Socrates is on trial for corrupting the youth of Athens, not believing in the Gods, and going against the sophists and their ideals version of the good life. Socrates even
“The three accusers, Meletus, Anytus, and Lycon, and they had a total of three hours to present from an elevated stage their argument for guilt; no record of the prosecution's argument against Socrates and he survives”. The words and actions of Socrates may have contributed to his impiety charge. Socrates failed to attend important religious festivals, he may have stirred additional resentment by offering arguments against the collective, ritualistic view of religion shared by most Athenians. Xenophon indicates that the impiety charge stemmed primarily from the contention of Socrates that he received divine communications directing him to avoid politics and concentrate on his philosophic