The Socrates Apology - Essay Example

Socrates Apology As a dissenting member of the jury sitting within the courtroom on the case reported in Plato’s Apology, I felt it important to write down my thoughts regarding the charges that were brought against one Socrates. Socrates is an older gentleman, generally considered ill-kept, neglectful of his own house and is rumored to be constantly sowing discord within our community. It is difficult enough for us to keep the peace in these trying times, and we all know the gods must be kept appeased if we wish to avoid any catastrophes. He was brought in on four primary charges, namely, that he is spreading sacrilegious ideas in the marketplace, that he is associating with the Sophists, that he is corrupting the young, and that he does not honor the gods of Athens. Surprisingly, this man did not choose to flee the city in the common form of resisting arrest and instead chose to appear before the court and speak in his own defense. It is generally considered a poor choice to have the accused speak for himself, and it could be argued that Socrates didnt do himself any favors in attempting to present his case. However, after participating in the trial, I must admit I strongly disagree with my fellow jurors who have sentenced this man to death. Through his defense against that charges that have been pressed against him, Socrates has caused me to understand just why his actions are so vital to the strengthening and preservation of our fine community. The first charge brought against Socrates was that he was spreading sacrilegious ideas. This charge was levied against him as a result of his conversational habit of constantly challenging others ideas. When defending himself against this charge, Socrates admitted he did engage in this practice, but not as a means of spreading sacrilege. He instead claims that this idea has been taken out of context and twisted by old enemies of his. He said they tell "of one Socrates, a wise man, who speculated about the heaven above, and searched into the earth beneath, and made the worse appear the better cause” (Apology: 944). Socrates insisted he didnt intend to make people question the gods, but was instead working to understand the Oracles statement that he was the wisest man alive. As any same man might, Socrates had difficulty believing such a statement and he was forced to undertake a series of inquiries looking ‘into the heavens and earth" to learn why the Oracle might have said such a thing. Rather than an attempt to encourage sacrilege, Socrates said this was a personal journey of discovery to understand how other men think and how he might be different. “At last I went to the artisans, for I was conscious that I knew nothing at all, as I may say, and I was sure that they knew many fine things; and here I was not mistaken, for they did know many things of which I was ignorant, and in this they certainly were wiser than I was. But I observed that even the good artisans fell into the same error as the poets; because they were good workmen they thought that they also knew all sorts of high matters, and this defect in them overshadowed their wisdom” (Apology: 947). Rather than attempting to foster sacrilege, Socrates asserted during the trial that he was attempting to open individuals minds to greater thought, deepening and enriching beliefs, within a non-threatening public sphere. The second charge brought against Socrates was that he was associated with the Sophists. Of course, everyone knows the only purpose of the Sophists is to foster chaos and confusion within the city. They intentionally seek out ways to rebel against the ordered way of life we have established here. Again, though, Socrates insisted he was simply acting in response to the Oracles pronouncement. As a logical man, it was difficult for him to take the Oracles word that he was the wisest man alive and he naturally went on a quest to understand why that might be so. There were numerous individuals and groups he felt were wiser than himself, but finding the answer as to why the Oracle considered him to be wiser would surely prove valuable to state as it would help lead the way to developing more wise citizens. Socrates thus logically went to the public and began questioning those individuals and groups he felt were wise. From his defense, it becomes possible to conclude that Socrates’ definition of wisdom entails not only knowledge, but also the awareness of what one does not know. “I am called wise, for my hearers always imagine that I myself possess the wisdom which I find in others: but the truth is, O men of Athens, that God only is wise; and by his answer he intends to show that the wisdom of men is worth little or nothing” (Apology: 947). What his defense boils down to regarding this charge is that he was engaged in his own personal learning process, not a system of instruction for others. He asserted that his purpose was never to teach, even going so far as to point to his own poverty as proof that he accepted no payment for being a teacher, but was rather to gain greater understanding of his own thoughts and thought processes. Something I found interesting in Socrates statement was that even though he found wisdom within those who possessed knowledge, it tended to be limited only to their field. In spite of this, the individuals often felt such limited knowledge and wisdom justified their belief that they held all the answers in everything without any need for further examination. I must admit, this claim caused me to question my own sources of knowledge and made me think about how much such questioning could add to my understanding of life. The third charge Socrates faced was that he was corrupting the young. It seems a relatively fair charge to make given that he was already having an effect on my own thinking, but its difficult to quantify this as corruption. Rather, it seems to be more of a public improvement. Socrates wasnt forcing anyone to take part in his discussions and those who did were encouraged to grow intellectually and philosophically by carefully examining their thoughts as I was doing through the trial. In his defense, Socrates acknowledged that most of us sitting in judgment of him as jurors have heard bad things about him from our fathers, but he argued that this is because our fathers have misunderstood him. He claims he rarely attempted to take up discussions that dealt with the political struggles of the nation, but rather preferred to deal with hypothetical situations that left questions of morals, ethics, and concrete conclusions open for debate. I must admit, I was surprised by the highly logical way in which Socrates chose to defend this point as it would have been more normal for him to have made an emotional appeal to us as an older man and a former servant of the state. However, Socrates admitted that he often made enemies while going through his process of inquiry, admitting perhaps that an appeal to old friendship would have been insincere since he made many of our fathers feel foolish in the face of his public inquiries. “I went to one man after another, being not unconscious of the enmity which I provoked, and I lamented and feared this” (Apology: 946). While he attempted to only question those he felt were wiser than himself, he justly argued that it would be impossible for him to fully prevent others from participating in conversations or listening in on conversations he was having and it would have been counterproductive to his purpose to learn as much as he could. In addition, he argued that it is only by constantly questioning what we think we know that society can grow into the future. Rather than being threatening, he suggested this questioning process is instead defining and enlightening – ultimately and inevitably beneficial to society. The final charge brought against Socrates was that he was not honoring the city’s gods. This was perhaps the most serious charge against him because we cannot afford to risk the gods wrath at this time. However, Socrates flatly denied this charge and instead suggested that he was merely following up on their direction. He acknowledged his lack of propriety by asking us as jurors to forgive his coarse manner of speech, “using the same words in my defense which I have been in the habit of using, and which most of you may have heard in the agora, and at the tables of the money-changers, or anywhere else” (Plato, 1893), but this was not an intention to dishonor the sanctity of the court. In much the same way, his behavior, though not commonly recognized as homage to the gods, was actually fully in their service as he sought to understand the gift theyd given him and find a means of transmitting it to others. I think what angered the other jurors was the sarcastic nature of Socrates defense at this point, suggesting that the plain speech of the street was capable of relating the truth, but that the speech of the court was no longer capable of conveying equal truth. In other words, Socrates expressed an idea that he is closer to the true spirit and beliefs of his people than those who have been corrupted by power and that likely angered many of my peers. In light of the results of the trial, the unsurprising fact that the other jurors insisted on a guilty verdict and a sentence of death and the surprising fact that Socrates refused to escape to exile, I felt it necessary to record these thoughts regarding the proceedings I witnessed. Socrates determination to live what he spoke has had a profound impact on me. His dedication to examining the truth, questioning ideas and exploring possible alternative answers has changed my way of life. I can honestly say I am a stronger, better, more fully aware human being than I was before participating in Socrates trial. I hope I do his memory justice throughout the rest of my life, continuing the search he started to find the true source of wisdom. Works Cited Plato. The Apology. Taken from Wilkie, Brian & Hurt, James. Literature of the Western World, Volume 1: The Ancient World Through the Renaissance. (4th Ed.). New York: Prentice Hall. (1997). Print. Read More