The Apology

The Apology

Socrates begins his apology by discussing the terms of truth and persuasion. In this he draws a contrast on a moral level, "Ð'...so persuasively did they speak. And yet hardly anything of what they said was true" (Plato p.29, 17a). From this he draws the basis for the rest of his apology, the fact that while what his accusers say may be very persuasive it eludes the truth. Socrates classifies himself as an orator of the truth, not as an accomplished speaker as his accusers dub him. He does this to emphasize the fact that he is a simple man speaking the simple truth, not an eloquent speaker shrouding his words with other intentions. The challenge that Socrates gives to the jury ties into the point for which that the jury was assembled in the first place, to decipher the truth. "Ð'...Concentrate you attention on whether what I say is just or not, for the excellence in a judge lies in this" (Plato p.29, 18a), in this passage Socrates asks the jury to focus on the truth of what he says, not how he says it. In essence, he asks the jury to be the judges of justice.

Socrates begins to defend himself against his accusers in a very organized fashion. He begins by stating that his accusers are separated into two factions, the earlier and the more recent ones. The earlier ones are numerous and have not been explicitly identified. These he says are more difficult to defend against for two reasons. One, they have influenced many of the children in Athens, who then grew up to dislike Socrates and believe in the lies they were told regarding him. Reason number two has to do with the fact that they have not revealed themselves to him, so they cannot even be brought into court. Socrates describes his disposition, "Ð'...one must simply fight the shadowsÐ'..." (Plato p.29, 18d). Three points of crime were made against Socrates by his earlier accusers. The first says that he is guilty of studying things in the sky and below the earth. This implies that Socrates concerns himself with only the physical world and does not believe in the Gods which the city of Athens has sanctioned. The second accusation says that Socrates makes the worse argument the stronger one. This has to do basically with the mental games Socrates would play with other people. He was known for questioning people with such a tenacious force that it often made them feel as if they didn't know what they were talking about. He often plays devils advocate with people, and contradicted what they thought in order to teach them the fallacy in what they believe. Because of this, many became angered at their own inability to argue with him, and simply accused him of making the worse argument the better or corrupting the truth. The third accusation says that he teaches all of his malpractices to others. This has to do with Socrates being wrongly associated with a group called the Sophists. The Sophists were wise men who came to Athens and taught the young logic and the skills needed to be successful for a fee. However the Sophists soon became corrupt and because of that became shunned and hated in Athens. While the views of the sophists and those of Socrates were very different, because he was considered a wise man by the city of Athens, he was often classified as one of them. Socrates holds a different philosophy then the Sophists regarding the ability to decipher a universal truth, as well as the possibility of knowing everything about the universe. The Sophists are relativists, and therefore believe in the idea that there is no single truth, but many that apply individually to different people. Socrates holds the idea of a single universal truth. The Sophists are also skeptics, meaning they do not believe it is possible for humans to know everything about the universe, only certain parts. On the other hand Socrates searches optimistically to discover everything there is to discover. His later accusers, Meletus, Anytus, and Lycon, hold different accusations against Socrates. The accusations made against him by these men is best told by Socrates himself, "Ð'...Socrates is guilty of corrupting the young and of not believing in the gods in whom the city believes, but in other new spiritual thingsÐ'..."(Plato p.32, 24b).

At this point, Socrates decided to tell the story which has landed him in this court of law. The story begins with his friend Chaerephon, who Socrates met when he was a soldier. Chaerephon, who finds Socrates to be a very wise man, decides to ask Re the Oracle of Delphi, the speaker on behalf of Apollo, if any man is wiser then Socrates. The Oracle answers in the negative, affirming the fact that Socrates is the wisest of the wise. Upon hearing this, Chaerephon rushes to Socrates and tells him of the news. This causes a very stupefied Socrates to ponder on what this answer could mean. Because Socrates is aware that he has very little knowledge, he found it difficult to believe that no one is wiser then he is. He decided to question the people who were reputed wise, in an effort to find someone wiser than he so that he could prove that the Oracle must have meant something else by the statement. So Socrates set out to interview three types of people; politicians, poets, and craftsmen. However in the end Socrates realizes something. These men all have knowledge in the field of knowledge for which they are known; however they believe that they are wise about things that they do not know. As a result of this, Socrates realized that he is wiser then them, for he does not pretend to know things that he is ignorant of. From this Socrates realizes that the Oracle was correct after all and that these men were all more ignorant then himself. Because of this questioning, Socrates also gained a good amount of unpopularity. Socrates comes to the decision that his mission in life is to investigate anyone who is considered, or considers themselves wise and, "Ð'...if I do not think he is, I come to the assistance of the god and show him that he is not wise" (Plato p.32, 23b).

Socrates then moves on to address the specific accusations made by one of his later accusers; Meletus. These accusations being; corrupting the young and not believing in the gods, Socrates begins to cross examine the two points in order to help not only the jury but Meletus himself see the fallacy in these arguments. The first cross-examination comes into play when Socrates asks Meletus who the educators of the young are. He asks Meletus this question to help him realize that what he is accusing Socrates of doing is impossible. It is not feasible for one man to corrupt all of the youth in Athens, and he uses the analogy of a horse trainer to show this. It is not all but one who improves the young, but one in the face of all the