Analysis of Socrates' Apology - Book Report/Review Example

Introduction to Philosophy – Socrates/Apology Introduction Plato and his writings through the Platonic Dialogues constitute some of the foundationalelements of the Western philosophic tradition. Over the course of Plato’s career his works span an enormous array of subjects. Plato’s Apology considers Socrates trial in front of the Greek lawmakers. Socrates had been brought to trial by an individual named Meletus who had accused him of corrupting the Athenian youth. The Apology then represents the entirety of Socrates’ argument to the court to prove his innocence and demonstrate the absurdity of Meletus claims against him. In this effort Socrates bravely presents arguments relating to the need to life the examined life, as without living a life of purpose and meaning he believes there is no purpose in existence. In refuting Meletus, Socrates presents a series of logical arguments that work to should the argumentative inconsistencies in Meletus accusations. This essay contextualizes and considers Socrates’ claim that a better person cannot be harmed by a worse one, delving into evidence from the Apology and offering a personal response to Socrates’ main line of philosophical reasoning. Analysis The Apology begins with Socrates expending considerable effort to demonstrate how he came to partake in his role as an expounder of wisdom and intellectual thought. He describes how a truth-teller claimed that Socrates was the wisest individual in the land, and how he went about attempting to test the truth of this claim. He indicates that he engaged many individuals in intellectual debate and after leaving each conversation came to the realization that he was in actuality the wisest. Socrates then turns his argument to Meletus claim that in expounding his wisdom he has consciously corrupted the Athenian youth. Socrates attempts to refute Meletus argument that he willfully corrupts the Athenian youth, by advancing the argument that it is impossible for a worse person to harm a better person. While the comment is directed on Meletus, it is clear that Socrates is directing the comment towards the entirety of Greek culture that has sought to indict him for ‘corrupting the Athenian youth’. The exact exclamation by Socrates in terms of this specific argument is that, “Be sure that if you kill the sort of man I say I am, you will not harm me more than yourselves. Neither Meletus nor Anytus can harm me in any way; he could not harm me, for I do not think it is permitted that a better man be harmed by a worse” (Plato, pg. 28). In these regards, Socrates is arguing along a number of lines. While immediately clear, it’s important to consider one of the predominant themes of the Apology of living the purposeful life and its centrality to all things even death. This is not linked to the logical progression of Socrates argument here, but in considering this passage in context of the entire Apology, it’s clear that in part Socrates is indicating that it is impossible for a worse man to harm a better man, as he believes in a sort of life path that the individual follows as a pre-ordained life purpose. In this regards, Socrates is somewhat vague as to the mystical potential of this mode of reasoning, and when subjecting his thoughts to strict rationalistic examination they are not entirely sound. Yet, it is this same line of thought that leads Socrates to indicate that even if the Greek counsel presiding over his fate were to tell him that he could live if he were he to cease spreading his wisdom and intellect to the Athenian youth, he would have to reject their offer as it is not worth living if one is not living true to their purpose. It follows that when saying that it is impossible for a worse man to harm a better man, Socrates is in part indicating that the better man is able to adhere to their principles and meaning even in the face of challenges from individuals deficient in their own. There is also another line of reasoning Socrates implements in terms of this argument. He continues his earlier statement stating, “certainly he might kill me, or banish, or disenfranchise me...I think he is doing himself much greater harm that what he is doing now, attempting to have a man executed unjustly. Indeed, men of Athens, I am far from making a defense now on my own behalf, as might be thought, but on yours, to prevent you from wrongdoing by mistreating the god’s gift to you by condemning me; for if you kill me you will not easily find another like me” (Plato, pg. 28). As indicated earlier, Socrates has established to the Greek counsel that through his investigations he has found himself the wisest person in Athens; as such Socrates has proven that as the wisest person in Athens he is an extremely rare individual and without a doubt a gift to the Athenian people. In considering this line of reasoning it’s important to consider the broader implications of Socrates argument. It seems that Socrates is indicating that in Meletus and the Athenian counsel harming Socrates they are doing so in a sort of bad faith. Socrates believes that in being the better person he has chosen to live his life virtuously. In living his life virtuously Socrates has contributed to society and lived his life in productive ways. He has also worked towards achieving his own sense of purpose and meaning; in Socrates’ instance, it seems that he believes this to be living honestly and spreading his wisdom and intellect to the Athenian youth. It follows then that it is impossible for a worse person to harm a better person, as in doing so they would be harming themselves. For instance, consider the case of Meletus (an individual Socrates has indicated is worse than himself). If Meletus were to have Socrates killed, which he is attempting to do, it would not harm Socrates has lived his life in accord with the principles set out before him and done so in a virtuous and just way; therefore, in dying Socrates has simply realized the potential his life had for him. Conversely, in unjustly having Socrates tried for a crime he didn’t commit Meletus has varied from living a virtuous existence that is meaningful to his life’s purpose; therefore, Meletus has demonstrated he is an unjust individual who has hurt himself by not allowing a better individual to contribute to the betterment of society. The final means that Socrates indicates it is impossible for a worse person to harm a better person occurs later in the Apology. Socrates states, “If I corrupt some young men...then surely some of them who have grown older and realized I have gave them bad advice...should now come up here to accuse me avenge themselves” (Plato, pg. 30). There is a sense in this line of reasoning that if an individual -- in this case Socrates -- gave another individual bad advice, then if the individual was a better person they would ultimately realize the advice was bad and neglect it for a more viable interpretation of things. It follows that the worse individual would be unable to harm the better individual as the better individual would ultimately figure the truth out for themselves and overcome any wrong that was done. Personal Position In developing my own personal position on the subject there are a number of considerations that I believe must be noted in the discussion. In Socrates’ instance he approaches the concept from a number of philosophical viewpoints and perspectives, and indeed it is a complex subject that must be examined from a number of viewpoints. One of the most important issues to discern is what constitutes a good or a bad person. In these regards, Socrates spends very little time establishing his argument, and in labeling Meletus as the worse person Socrates has to a degree acted out of spite. One such example of a better person could be examined situationally; for instance, in attempting to have Socrates tried unjustly Meletus has the worse person. Another interpretation might be that the worse person is the individual who has chosen to live their life in a way that is more beneficial to all individual in society. It is then necessary to consider the viability of the argument itself. Perhaps the most basic view point considers the nature of one individual doing physical harm to another individual. It seems that in these regards it is highly possible for a worse individual to do harm to a better individual. Socrates argument is highly ambiguous these regards, and while his embracement of his upcoming death is undoubtedly brave, it is clear that he would choose to avoid this fate and has been harmed by a worse individual. From another perspective, one can consider whether it is possible for a worse individual to harm a better individual through sharing knowledge or wisdom. In this regards, it also seems that it is possible for a worse individual to harm a better individual. The advice the better individual receives could be implemented in nefarious ways that would result in the person being harmed; for instance the advice they receive could be taken and then implemented in ways that would cause them to achieve less than they would if they were not to receive the advice of this worse individual. Conclusion In conclusion, it’s clear that Socrates’ argument that it is impossible for a worse man to do harm to a better man must be considered from a number of perspectives. Perhaps most prominently, it seems that Socrates is indicating that in attempting to wrong Socrates, Meletus is not actually harming him, but only harming himself. This is because Socrates has lived his life in accord with purpose and principles while the individual harming him, in harming him, has demonstrated that he has not. My personal perspective is that Socrates perspective is highly slanted and not logically consistent with his profound plea to preserve his life. References Plato Trns. John Cooper. (1997). Complete Works of Plato. New York: Hacket Publishing Company. Read More