Plato’s primary argument for Socrates to defend himself against accusations of disrespect of the gods, as well as Athenian youth corruption, is that Socrates’ critics are merely scared of him because they do not truly comprehend what he is arguing. The lack of substantive criticism of his work is the chief means by which Socrates seeks to discredit his own opponents. Socrates’ implementation of this defense is quite strong, as his own ability to intellectualize his material makes his opponents look foolish. However, there are still some missteps that prevent it from being a perfect defense, such as the overbearing tone of his defense. Despite these small mistakes, Socrates’ intellectual defense of himself in his trial is an extremely strong one.
On the whole, Socrates’ defense has many strengths to it. Socrates’ implementation of the argument is highly personal, speaking in a direct address to the Athenians to make himself look more relatable. One particular advantage Socrates has is that he places his audience at a greater level of intelligence than his accusers; by claiming that his accusers simply do not understand Socrates’ teachings, and this is why they are afraid of it, he implies to them that they do not understand them like we do, immediately placing his audience in a group apart from his accusers. This has the effect of identifying himself with them, and therefore garnering sympathy.
One of Socrates’ greatest strengths in his arguments is his appeal to the gods; in response to his accusers, who say he is defying the gods by “being a busybody” and inquiring about the nature of the earth and the world around them, he says he is not trying to usurp or defy the gods, but to understand them (19c). His point that he does not charge for whatever teachings he makes to those around him bolsters his defense, as he is not taking money or swindling people, and he cites many other scholars who do the same thing (19e). Furthermore, he successfully points out the fear and insecurity inherent in characterizing “intellectual inquiry” as having their “pretensions to knowledge” exposed, as well as their ignorance (23e).
However, one of the biggest weaknesses to Socrates’ defense is the lack of objectivity with which he has to characterize his arguments. From the start, he establishes that he believes he is a speaker of truth, denouncing claims that he is a “clever speaker” by noting he sincerely believes what he is saying, and not using trickery (17a). That being said, he still engages in a certain arrogance when he engages with the public, saying that “from me you shall hear the whole truth, though notin language adorned with fine words and phrases or dressed up, as theirs was” (17a). In this sense, he turns the accusation of ‘cleverness’ on to his accusers, saying that they are obfuscating the truth with the kind of fancy words they themselves accuse of Socrates. While this is an effective argument, it can easily backfire; his claim of authenticity comes only from himself, which inherently biases him towards his own position. By effectively arguing that his position is correct because he thinks it is correct, he does not help his audience to actually consider his position. That being said, he does still call witness to others who relate to the gods (such as Chaerephon, who spoke to the Delphic oracle), removing the burden of proof at least partially from himself (21a).
The stakes of this position are extremely high, which is something else that bolsters his argument – Socrates is effectively fighting for the right to question and to educate oneself. The accusers of Socrates, as he claims, are claiming to fight against obfuscation of the truth, but they already presume that the answers Socrates is discovering are false, being the “weaker” argument turned into the “stronger” (19c). To win this argument is to essentially maintain the right for Athenians to learn independently and not toe the line of Athenian politics; this is what Socrates’ accusers are afraid of, and Socrates effectively calls them out on it (even as he claims he does not educate people).
In conclusion, Socrates’ position in Plato’s Defense of Socrates is extremely strong, with one or two exceptions. Socrates appeals to his own authority from time to time, but primarily in his status as a seeker of truth, not necessarily a possessor of truth. Socrates’ accusers are effectively characterized as frightened, ignorant anti-intellectuals who seek to denounce anything that would threaten their own sense of order and dogma, Socrates painting himself as someone who understands his own arguments much better than his accusers could ever dream. While this can also make him seem arrogant and hypocritical - calling his accusers what his accusers are calling him (ignorant) – Socrates tempers this by not holding a claim to truth, only the desire to investigate. By lumping himself with the other Athenians who also wish to learn truth (and implying they are all smarter than his accusers), Socrates provides an effective argument for the continuation of this search.
Works Cited
Plato. “Apology: Defense of Socrates.”
