Meletus 'Guilty Of Socrates' Trial

Socrates is a man of pride. He has passion for his beliefs and values, and would rather die than give them up. When presented with the idea of the jury releasing him he states “as long as I draw breath and am able, I shall not cease to practice philosophy” (Plato 32). This shows that Socrates does not believe what he has done and what he believes in is wrong; he will continue to do what he had been put on trial for if released. This is the exact opposite of what one would say to appease the jury. Socrates is on trial because some believe what he was doing was wrong, by refusing to acknowledge that he was wrong, this speech contradicts our modern day idea of an apology.

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. In the Apology Socrates defends himself against the charges brought against him by his prosecutor Meletus in two ways. In the first way Socrates describes his method and

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.

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

Socrates started his life as an average Athen citizen. His parents worked, making an honest living. But as Socrates grew up, he began to realize that his mind questioned things and wondered how come no one else questioned the same things or at least think about the answers to the questions that were not answered. So, as his mind kept wandering, he began to acknowledge the questions that were not answered and sought for those answers. He ended up believing and teaching things to other people, whether it went against the way the Athen government or not, he still continued his work. 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.

Even though Socrates claims to be innocent of the charges brought against him, he is ultimately sentenced to death. After he hears the jury's decision, Socrates is sent to jail to await his execution. Crito arrives before Socrates is scheduled for execution and offers him a chance to escape. Crito believes the jury's decision was unjust. In Crito's eyes, Socrates is innocent and therefore has the right to escape. However, even though Crito believes Socrates has the right to escape, Socrates disagrees with him. He reminds Crito “no human being should do injustice in return, whatever he suffers from others”(Crito, 49c). Socrates argues even if the jury's decision was unjust, it is never permissible for him to do injustice in return and therefore he will not try to escape. In essence, even though Socrates is offered the opportunity to

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.”

According to Socrates perspective, the democracy of Athens was corrupt and even though they courts were made in such a way that everyone was judged fairly, it wasn’t such because there were no rules or principles set forth. When a person was brought to court in the Athenian court and the person spoke against the jurors or offended them, he or she could be prosecuted based on that. In summary, judgment was passed based on emotion rather than on justice.

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

Socrates’ philosophy had been based on morality; which is the desire to do good and reject evil. Telling the courts what they wanted to hear was immoral and against Socrates’ philosophy and morality. Doing so would result in a weak soul that is full of ignorance. Socrates had developed an understanding that came from within. This gave him

The trial and death of Socrates is a book with four dialogues all about the trail that leads to the eventual death of Socrates. The four dialogues are Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, and Phaedo. It will explain the reasoning that brought Socrates to trial in the first place and give us a glimpse into the physiological thought of this time, and in this paper will describe some of the differences today.

Socrates arguments in his defense are effective due to the fact that he exposed the real corrupters of Athens youth. Socrates continues with the questioning of Meletus, he makes a point about corruption. He says that “if one, associates with corrupt people; then this corruption will eventually spread and you yourself will become corrupt”. So if you are corrupting the very people that you associate with, then eventually you will also become corrupt. 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.

Living within the age of the 21st century, it is almost impossible to open a newspaper and not find an article about some type justice issue violation. There are so many problems within our society that can be solved, but only if they are addressed in the correct manner. The most common means of addressing an issue is through protest. The three basic forms of protest are nonviolent direct action, persuasion, and "By any means necessary" direct action. From these different forms of protest the next debated topic becomes, what is the most effective means of protest? In this paper I will demonstrate that "By any means necessary" direct action is the most effective means of protest by examining all of the forms and arguments in a comparative fashion.

He is given the opportunity to choose an escape, and live his life never being able to return back to Athens. He completely opposes the idea and decides to live out the consequences of his trial, ultimately dying. Socrates made it his mission to live a virtuous life, which he did, right to his death. To life a virtuous life it would have gone against his own belief if he did escape his conviction, making this aspect very important in his philosophy. “To do so is right, and one must not give way or retreat or leave one’s post, but both in war and in courts and everywhere else, one must obey the commands of one’s city and country, or persuade as the nature of justice. It is impious to bring violence to bear against your mother or father; it is much more so to use it against your country.” What we say in reply, Crito, that the laws speak the truth, or not?” (TDS pg 51,52). By breaking the law, Socrates would be disobeying the laws as a citizen, like a child disobeying his parent. By escaping he would have been doing an impious act that would affect his standing with the gods. Therefore, Socrates was willing to die if it meant that his actions would still be

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. One of the charges brought against him was corrupting the youth of Athens. Accordingly to the words of those who complained at