Plato's Defense Of Corruption In The Apology By Socrates

The Apology mostly consisted of Socrates giving his defense in court against his three accusers, mainly replying to Meletus since he was the only one who spoke during the trial. Meletus had various arguments or accusations against Socrates yet they could all have been counteracted as the arguments did not seem to be made from factual points. As a result, Socrates was often able to find several contradictions in Meletus’s words. For example, one of the first formal charges that Socrates addresses is corrupting the youth and he gives a decent defense that no person would intentionally corrupt another person. He also calls Meletus out for not clearly thinking of the upbringing of the youth.

Socrates "The Apology" is truly not an apology, in the reading Socrates stands grounds to his

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.

Meletus accused Socrates of "refusing to acknowledge the gods recognized by the State and of introducing new and different gods. " How can you accuse someone of being an atheist but at the same time saying they believe in other gods? Meletus also accused Socrates of corrupting the youth. Meletus claims that the information Socrates was teaching was harming the youth, and that the law makes the youth better. Socrates asks who is responsible for knowing the law, Meletus suggests that jurymen, assembly members and councillors are responsible for knowing the law.

Athenian law court speeches give great insight into the citizens who made up the jury. They were at the centre of Athenian democracy, yet all modern information concerning the jury and their preferences rely almost entirely on what we see in law courts. By examining which techniques were used regularly in law court speeches, a picture of what appealed to the jury and the type of people it was made up of can be constructed. While it is hard to assess certain techniques impressiveness to the jury as it is rare to know for certain which speeches are successful, their repetition across decades indicates they were popular techniques. The jury’s capacity to understand and remember the material presented, their role in the larger Athenian democracy

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).

Aristophanes shows that Socrates teaches those who are not innocent to have unjust arguments using false claims. Strepsiades enrolls his son into Socrates' school so that he can learn these skills and win the case with his creditors. When the “unjust argument” and “just argument” argue,

When Socrates calls on to Meletus in order for him to make his claims and explain them to the assembly and the jury, Socrates makes different arguments

“Socrates: An Atypical Hero of Greece” In Plato’s The Apology, Socrates defended himself while on trial against the old and new accusers in part by relating himself to other ancient Greek heroes. His most daring comparison is to the greatest hero of the ancient Greek civilization: Achilles. The purpose of Socrates’ defense speech was to attempt to persuade the jury that the social order of Greek society needed to transfer from an honor culture to a civilization that prioritized justice overall. By comparing and contrasting attributes of himself to Achilles, Socrates attempted to justify his claim that he was a hero like Achilles because they were both willing to sacrifice their lives for what they believed was right for the common good of others.

Here is another piece of evidence to support my point. “Because I’m well aware that wherever I go, the young people will listen to what I say, as they do here. If I antagonize them, they’ll drive me out by persuading their elders to do so.” (Lines 142-144) In this quote, Socrates is saying that even if he approaches the young ones with his ideas and philosophies, at a certain point they will come to a dislike of him and try anything at any cost to drive him away.

Comparing Socrates words in the Republic for the philosopher to rule to the words of the Apology where philosophy is viewed as something that is punishable by death, this is where the defense or importance of philosophy is realized. For if the philosophers were the ones to rule, nobody would question whether or not what they were doing was right or wrong because the philosopher-kings make the rules through wisdom and knowledge. Plato wants to paint a portrait of the philosopher as not only something the city should want to have, but also as someone who would be fit to rule above all others. This contrasts, again, to the points made by the jurors to Socrates in the Apology for they saw Socrates as someone who brings the city

His personal defense is described in works two of his students: Xenophon and Plato. Both of them wrote papers called Apology, which is the Greek word for “defense”. In this essay I used Apology by Plato as the main resource, since it contents a more full account of the trial of Socrates and his words. Despite the fact that the philosopher attempted to defend himself and explain the reasons for saying and doing the things he did, it did not do any good for his justification. On the contrary, Socrates’ words seemed to make the jury harden their hearts and condemn him.

Socrates was a greek philosopher who found himself in trouble with his fellow citizens and court for standing his grounds on his new found beliefs from his studies about philosophical virtue, justice, and truth. In “Apology” written by Plato, Socrates defended himself in trial, not with the goal of escaping the death sentence, but with the goal of doing the right thing and standing for his beliefs. With this mindset, Socrates had no intention of kissing up to the Athenians to save his life. Many will argue that Socrates’ speech was not very effective because he did not fight for his life, he just accepted the death sentence that he was punished with. In his speech he said, “But now it’s time to leave, time for me to die and for you to live.”

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.

Meletus tells Socrates that he does not believe in gods at all. Socrates shows that a person cannot believe in divine activities but not in divinities. He cannot be contradicted; he cannot believe in the gods and not believe in the gods. Socrates uses reasoning and logic throughout his trial.