The Socratic Philosophy - Essay Example

Socratic philosophy- worth the guilt or not? Introduction: The history holds for us a few remarkable incidents which have driven us to believe in theimportance of faith and to stick by the reverent traditions of our religions. One of the many significant turns that took place back in the antiquity is that of the ‘Socratic trial’ which has been an ideal source of inspiration for many historians and philosophers. The memorable Socrates was a famous Classical Greek philosopher who is acknowledged more eminently as the founder of Western philosophy. Socrates and the speech that he delivered at the time of his trial are alive today in its true essence in the form of Plato’s version of the speech which is remembered as ‘The apology’. The original speech given by Socrates was written by Xenophon, but Plato’s version is still considered to be the most reliable source of gaining information about the history of the Socrates. There is no assurance considering how close are Plato’s words to the words employed by Socrates in the actual speech at the time of his trial but it is believed that they are as closest as they can be. The speech given by Socrates was an attempt to defend himself from the accusations that were presented in the court against him. These charges included his corruptive activities in order to deliberately corrupt young minds along with his belief in atheism and creation of new deities. Plato was the only one who was able to revive the existence of Socrates in that court and his true state of mind. ‘The apology’ begins with the confusion that Socrates explained during the trial which said that he does not know if people of Athens, which were presented in the courts as the jury have been convinced by his accusers to join the jury. According to Plato’s version of Socrates, he believed in the instant usage of words that came right from his mind rather than the usage of metaphors and perhaps words that over elaborate. The speech clearly presents Socrates notion of philosophy, which was an integral part of his undeveloped wisdom and his belief that philosophy can never be there unless one admits the intensity of Ignorance. The Trial: There three men who accused Socrates were Anytus, son of Anthemion who according to Socrates became a part of the indictment to represent the anger of the politicians and craftsmen. Socrates explained the eminence of virtue and that it cannot be taught while providing evidences to prove that many Athenians have sons who are in many ways mediocre as compared to the greatness that they had to offer. He precedes with real life examples of Pericles and Thucydides to strongly support the notion. Anytus was aggravated by Socrates’ offensive remarks and impolite behavior that persuaded Anytus to convict him for various charges. The second man to represent the accusations was Meletus, the only speaker during Socrates’ defense speech. Socrates mentions that Meletus joined the indictment to represent the poets; he also describes Meletus’s appearance as a young hook-nosed man who is not known to many. During their discussion Meletus permits Socrates to bombard him with baffling queries that entrapped him in Socrates little conspiracy. Meletus accused Socrates of atheism and his belief in demi-gods. The third and the final accuser was Lycon, a remarkable rhetorician who as per Socrates joined the indictment on behalf of the rhetoricians. Along with Lycon, Nails is also believed to be an accuser who strongly represented the indictment and the charges pressed against Socrates. Nails became a democratic politician right after the downfall of the four hundred; he accused Socrates for his active part as one of the thirty tyrants who were solely responsible for the execution of his son, Autolycus. Socrates was faced by a set of two accusations which he had to defend himself from. The first set of accusations comprises of his conviction in various sorts of crimes and his big mouth that has only offensive words to convey. This set of accusations also included that Socrates was an inquisitive man who made people aware of his dubious notions regarding the Earth and the Sky. He was also accused for the corruption of young minds by his corruptive activities which were held responsible for an inappropriate impact on the young generation. Socrates was also known for his supernatural beliefs and his own discoveries that stood strong as an evidence of Socrates belief in atheism and demi-gods. Socrates and the sophism charges faced by him: According to Socrates, the inception of all these accusations took place from a comic poet, Aristophanes and his work of fiction ‘The clouds’. Aristophanes well satirized Socrates by portraying him as an epitome of atheism and scientific sophism. Socrates, as a response to Aristophanes produces a statement that explains his incompetence to be called as a sophist because a sophist is well-informed and sensible enough just in accordance with the requirements of becoming one. The worldly view of a sophist was someone who could perhaps be given the title of a professor who taught humanity to the first great democratic nation, they were a fountain of erudition for the politicians and lawyers and shall be remembered for their distinct art of inducement and to this day people acknowledge their contributions to the liberal arts. The art of persuasion is a question that still creates confusion regarding if Socrates really was a sophist or is it a matter of perception. Till this day Socrates speech when he was asked to say something to defend himself from the charges of sophism is put to question because he was known for making a weak-kneed argument as strong as an armor but at that point in time astonishingly he denied it without a line of reasoning or perhaps by employing the art of persuasion that he mastered in. Due to the fact that sophists were known to be the people who taught their students to create mystification in order to defend themselves, has produced a few wavering thoughts regarding if Socrates was a sophist and if he was he clearly misunderstood the meaning of being a sophist because sophism was all about making an individual look stronger and perhaps sharper by the help of the knowledge that they possessed. Nevertheless, there are two aspects as to how one can look at it or perhaps many more depending on how people perceive Socrates and the charges of sophism against him; the first way to look at it is to simply believe in how Socrates reacted which is imprinted on the pages of history and take his denial to be the truth and that sophism according to Socrates was a vocation that made one earn a livelihood but he never earned anything on the basis of his knowledge and also that he was not the erudite that people took him to be but his knowledge was for himself and his perceptions were purely based on absolutism where he also mentioned that he belonged to a poor family whereas sophists had a history of prosperous family backgrounds. The second way to perceive it could be either to take him as a sophist or the contrary by acknowledging his speech as the truth or his sophism compared with its true essence which absolutely implies that he was not a sophist. Therefore, the conclusion regarding Socrates as a sophist is usually found on a rather fluctuating end because of his words acting as a denial for his act of sophism and if he was a sophist based on who sophists really were, but for most of the people it ends with either a suspicion or a whole new way to look at Sophism. The Speech: The speech has three very interesting distinct parts; the first part presents Socrates self-defense which is the most popular part of the text. It also includes his narration of the Oracle at the Delphi and the entrapment of Meletus. The second part provides us with the Plato’s version of the verdict and the final part well aligns the punishment. The first part of the speech begins with words that unveil Socrates thoughts and state of mind that compelled him to argue with the jurors. According to Socrates, the jurors were tainted by his opponents when they were young and ambitious. He explains that all his opponents were jealous of him which resulted in the accusations of dishonesty against him. Socrates did not name any of his opponents except Aristophanes, the comic poet that perhaps was responsible for all the charges against him. Socrates represented his state of mind specifically on the charges of corruption against him by saying that the notion of deliberate corruption is incorrect in itself. Socrates also admits that the foundation of all his dilemmas was the Oracle along with which he also described the Chaerophon’s visit to the Oracle, Delphi to interrogate people regarding if anyone was wiser than the Socrates. Socrates was mystified when Chaerophons told him that God has given him the answer which says that there is no one more knowledgeable than Socrates. Socrates responded to Chaerophons by stating that he has no wisdom at all therefore, to lie is like speaking against the reverence of God. Within the first part, Socrates goes on a mission to solve a mere enigma that the most oblivious man can also be the hidden treasure in town. This mission was also meant to clear the vague meaning of Oracles inside his head and to get to the real meaning of it. He very strategically puzzled the poets, politicians and craftsmen while acknowledging them as people who didn’t understand their work at all, he gave an instance by saying the poets don’t know their own writings, politicians are unaware of their own techniques and craftsmen seem to be conceited as well. Socrates tells us all about his speaking skills when he spoke for the Oracle, he was once asked if he would like to pretend to be someone else rather than being himself which was answered by him saying that he would like to be himself every single day. Socrates was acknowledged as a chatterer after the span of interrogation after which he proclaimed his own life’s mission provided to the jury as evidence that wisdom ultimately belongs to the Gods and Human knowledge and excellence is of no worth. Socrates plans to face the formal charges against particularly the corruption of young minds and preaching of atheism. He tackled these charges intelligently by accusing the jury, prominently Meletus just when he argued with Meletus on many strong matters. Socrates mentioned that no one would purposely like to influence the other by the help of corruption. There were two aspects towards understanding the charge of corruption against Socrates, the first aspect is that of an understanding if Socrates promoted atheism by teaching atheism to the young generation and the second aspect is if this is a result of Aristophanes’ work of fiction ‘The clouds’. While defending himself from the second charge, Socrates baffles Meletus which results in Meletus caught up in a contradictory situation where he announces that Socrates has promoted atheism by following demi-gods and spiritual tribes. Socrates on the contrary, proves Meletus’s contradiction and asked standing before the court of law if Meletus has created a test of logical contradictions for him. Socrates precedes and well explains to the jury that he feels the importance of morality and virtue is much more than that of the mundane matters. Socrates expressed that it is much more important to look for ways to attain the truth and the courage to face it rather than the formal charges against him. In the most notable part of the trial, Socrates proclaims that he will never be able to find the strength to even consider himself as a teacher because if he has been corrupting young minds why has no one stepped as student witnesses? And if they have not yet realized that they were part of a corruptive scheme why haven’t any person related to them reported against him? Therefore, he could never acknowledge himself as a teacher because of the lack of impact that he failed to make on the students. Finally, Socrates makes it clear for the people in the court that he will not employ emotional treachery and a pretentious attitude to gain sympathy but instead he will solely rely on the truth and will hold on to it till the end of time. He also told the court that he will not respond in any way that goes against his religion. The second part of the trial presents to us the verdict which proved to be a vote against Socrates as guilty by a huge number of strength. Plato did not give away the exact number of jurors or the voters. Many scholars proclaim that the number of judges were 500 or 501. The second part also includes the entire acquittal of Socrates and how he looked for ways to gain back the lost dignity by presenting a bit of dark humor concerning Meletus and his manipulation within the court. Finally, Socrates was sentenced to death by drinking Hemlock. The third and the final part discloses that the majority of voters were in favor of Socrates acquittal but there were also many who switched to death sentence because of the offensive speech given by Socrates. Socrates in the end responds to the people who voted for his acquittal that it was not the lack of retaliation that became the cause of his guilt but it was rather his rejection to the treacherous ways to gain sympathy within the court. He proved that death is never the cause of fear but in his case it is perhaps a blessing after having answered truthfully while addressing towards and his worries and quests. In the final few lines, he says that he holds no grudge against those who voted for his acquittal but they shall in return look after his three sons as the grow up and learn about the realities of life. Conclusion: It has never been proved if Socrates was guilty and whether he committed all the aforementioned crimes that he was charged for. However, we can conclude hypothetically from a juror’s perspective that his wisdom that he never claimed of having reflected in his speech during the trial. We cannot evaluate his over all character on the basis of the accusations but we can consider it to be the dark side that once existed inside him. We can overlook his life based on these accusations but something noteworthy can be found within his character which displays the importance of virtue, wisdom, morality and the curiosity to get to the truth. It is entirely up to us really if we want to acknowledge the moral yet honest side of him or the rendered provocative side of him that can easily tell us if his guilt was justified or not. So, to conclude towards if Socrates was guilty or not can be a bit of a vague task based solely on the trial and the charges which can never be proved as the actual truth but instead we can remember him for his composure and a favorable reception for his fate that he possessed. Bibliography: 1) Thomas C. Brick house and Nicholas D. Smith, Plato’s Socrates, Oxford University, 1996. 2) Thomas C. Brick house and Nicholas D. Smith, Routledge philosophy guidebook to Plato and trial of Socrates, Routledge publishing, 2004. 3) William Keith Chambers Guthrie, Socrates: Volume 3 the fifth century enlightenment, Part 2 Socrates, Cambridge University Press, 1971. Read More