The Apology written by Plato precisely presents Socrates’ defence at his trial on charges of corrupting the youth of Athens. He failed to recognize the state gods and invented new deities. Socrates explains in a very plain manner his method and motivation which earned him admiration amongst the Athens youth. He argues that his admiration made some people to dislike him, including his prosecutor. In our modern understanding of the word “apology”, Socrates’ defence is not an apology by any means (Plato 21).
Socrates begins his defence by explaining that he has no experience with the law courts, “This is my first appearance in law-court, at age of seventy” (Plato 23). Thus, he seeks pardon to express himself in a manner that he is accustomed. He explains that he does not study anything to do with sky or earthly things, and neither does he teach them. He says he has no special knowledge, but his behaviour stems from the story of the Oracle at Delphi, who claimed that no man was wiser than Socrates (Plato 23). Realizing he has made a mistake, Socrates concludes the Oracle prophesies on his wisdom was because that he seemed to know, but only understand nothing. To spread his peculiar wisdom, Socrates explains that, he questions only those men who claim to be wise in order to expose their ignorance. Socrates activities lead other people to dislike him, but brought him fame among the youths of Athens. He states that questioning of other people was in accord with his part of service to gods. He tells the jury, and I quote” In my investigation in the service of the god” (Plato 26). To proof that he served the god of Apollo he points out that he his poor man and he never received pay for his service (Plato 25).
The way Socrates responds to charges that he is guilty of corrupting the youth brings the in the apology of cross-examination as seen in most platonic dialogues. In his first defence against this charge, he clearly attempts to show that the charge has no serious value. He argues that the charge does not show a reasonable example of how to become corrupt. His second argument against corrupting Athens youth, Socrates denies that he does it deliberately as the prosecutor asserts. He presents his prosecutor with two possibilities: “Either I do not corrupt the young or, if I do, it is unwillingly, and you are lying in either case” (Plato 30). Socrates wanted to show jury that prosecutor’s charges against him were due to prosecutor’s contempt. However, his dialogue with the prosecutor his not a good example of this method, it seems more toward embarrassing his prosecutor than toward establishing the truth (Plato 36).
Socrates is ultimately found guilty thou by a narrow margin and on the sentencing phase he is asked to propose a penalty. Outrageously, he suggests that if he were to get what he ought to get, he should be awarded free meals at the expense of the city for his services to the state. He rejects exile and imprisonment, and suggests to be offered to pay a fine. The jury rejects these suggestions and sentences him to death. The Apology concludes with Socrates accepting the verdict with the observation that a just man should not fear death.
Work cited
Plato, Grube et al. Five Dialogues: Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Meno, Phaedo. 2002 Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. Pp. 21-45
