In this paper I will examine why Socrates did not attempt to appease the jury in his Apology. Socrates is put on trial for corrupting the youth and believing in gods other than the gods of the city. I believe he chose not to appease the jury for three reasons: he is a man of pride, he does not fear death and additionally finds it shameful to fear death.
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. Because of humans’ unwillingness to admit failure and ignorance, society needs scapegoats to protect their own egos.
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). He claims that this is how he has been able to live a long life in Athens and that he never meant any harm to the state. Socrates believes that for
Socrates is trying to test the point that no individual aspires to do or want things that are bad for this. This is because he states that no individuals yearns to be miserable and unhappy. This, undeniably, is true. However, even though no individual wishes to be miserable and unhappy, people do wish to make other individuals miserable and unhappy. What Socrates fails to see is that countless amounts of individuals wish to do bad deeds and hurt others, however, they themselves do not want to be made unhappy throughout that process. Example of these types of people are terrorists. On the other hand, teenagers seeking to emotionally abuse a friend can be seen under this category. This is because even though they wish to hurt their friend, they mistakingly believe that the friendship will remain intact.
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’ 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 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.
He questions everyone who claims to have wisdom and eventually comes to either aggravate those he made to look foolish or inspired those who kept an open mind. At one point Socrates claims that his life has been no less heroic than the heroes who fought at Troy. Considering how vital heroism is to Athenian culture, this claim can be unfavorable. Most Athenians when prompted about what is a hero, will picture Achilles, or one of Homer’s other heroes, not a man who “Corrupts the youth”, or “Is an Atheist”. So when asking whether or not his claim is plausible, we can see from the Apology and Crito that his enemies would say no, while his friends would say yes. In this paper, I argue that Socrates had lived a life no
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
In general, I do agree with your analysis, Socrates intentions were to leave a mark in society. In other words, to have individuals then and now take some time to “think” and seek greater knowledge. In my opinion, I can have concluded that his argument in trial serve not just as a plead to prove his innocence but as an invitation to follow his philosophy. Plato’s documentation of that event proves that Socrates did not die in vain that some was hearing his words and has cause conscience of themselves. Additionally, it can be seen that Socrates came to the wisdom of knowing himself and defending that knowledge to the
He had nothing to rebel against other than the people who he felt were not as smart as they say there are. Socrates’ friends were trying to persuade Socrates to leave and stop from having to be killed. Socrates doesn't want to leave as it will disdain his name, and he would be performing evil for evil. Socrates reasons for not going leaving the community are solely based on his principles and respect for his government. Trying to convince Socrates from staying we meet Crito. Crito is supposedly a friend to Socrates but his words and actions does not speak the same intentions. He tells Socrates that if he will not leave and escape prison, that everyone would think that he didn’t care about his friend well enough to help him. Socrates is not concerned about the opinion of the majority, for it is capable of neither the greatest evil nor the greatest good. Crito then questioned Socrates on many different things and also degraded his name and manhood. Some of the concerns listed by Crito regarded Socrates’ kids, the fact that his friends may be excluded from the Community, and playing into the hands of his enemies and giving aid to the ones who are disregarding the demands of justice. Socrates responds to this and admits that his exuberance is invaluable if it is used in support of what is right, but if used in support of what is wrong it leads to an even greater evil. He showed
“It’s clear to me that to die now and escape my troubles was a better thing for me” (Apology 41d). Socrates was a very wise man who gave deep and intellectual ideas regarding a human’s purpose in life and afterlife. He was arguing with the Men of Athens (the jury) because he was accused for disturbing the peace. Socrates was a mentor to Plato (who writes Phaedo, Symposium, Apology, and Republic about Socrates’ philosophical views) and was essential to the development of philosophy in classical Greece. Plato writes these books about Socrates’ life to dive deep into his thoughts, truth, and worldview. He is from Athens and helped to develop Athenian art and philosophy during the golden age of Athens around 400 BC. Socrates believes that once, the soul separates from the body, it can obtain true wisdom and understanding of love in the afterlife. Socrates’ worldview was of deep thinking and consisted of rational in his views of gaining true wisdom in afterlife, humility on his journey in obtaining wisdom, peaceful thought patterns, and his wise views to view love for the true beauty of the soul through obtaining a deeper connection.
In thinking of Socrates we must recognize that what we have is four secondhand sources depicting him. That of Plato, Xenophanes, Aristophanes, and Aristotle. All having radically different accounts on Socrates and his views. Out of all them we consider Plato’s to be the most possible account, even though we face a problem of different versions of Socrates. The existence and continual study of Socrates’ philosophy regardless of differing accounts is astonishing in itself since it survived not through the specific philosopher, but through other people. Which is a testament of the impact that a man, such as Socrates, can make. When we think of Plato, who is regarded as a father of western philosophy, we are quick to think of his major work The Republic, his student Aristotle, and his writing on Socrates. (We think of his writings on Socrates as mere footnotes in philosophical thought without examining them.) “Nothing comes from nothing,” Parmenides proudly claimed, and this philosophical doctrine applies to Plato’s thought.