In Plato's "Apology", Socrates' series of dialogues in the period preceding, during, and after his trial provide an insight into his mastery of rhetoric. That is especially true given his ability to arrange his arguments in a judicious manner. While not overly successful in persuading the jury, the final judgment appears to be as a result of bias and prejudice rather than having a weak argument in the various passages of the "Apology." Socrates makes a persuasive claim that it is not possible to separate wisdom from moral virtue. Therefore, by being a man of wisdom, he could not have committed the atrocities that he was being accused of by the people of Athens.
Socrates opens the dialogue with an introduction inquisitive (Crider, 35) in which he seeks to understand himself first before making his defense. The accusations levied against him are so grave to the extent that he no longer understands who he is as a person. Therefore, the goal of the dialogue is primarily a forensic examination. On the other hand, his defense from the accusations levied against him is secondary. Such an individual analysis not only draws attention towards his ensuing dialogue but also serves to achieve his intention of illustrating that wisdom cannot indeed be separated from the moral aspect. For that reason, his evaluation of his personal character during the introduction is meant to portray him as a wise man. As a wise man, he is therefore inherently moral and incapable of committing the atrocities that he is accused of by the people of Athens.
Following his introduction, Socrates proceeds to lay down the statement of facts according to his perspective. The statement of facts is an evaluation of what must be known to the general audience (Crider, 43). He even states those who have brought up the charges before him. He mentions them as Lycon, Anytus, and Meletus, whom he argues have been against him for a while. For that reason, he is not surprised that they are the ones accusing him (Plato, 18b). He also mentions his old accusers who he states have had long running prejudices against him even when compared to the much younger plaintiffs. Socrates proceeds to state the accusations levied against him; he is not a believer in gods and that he was a sophist (Plato, 19a). His statement of the facts of the case is meant to portray that he is indeed a wise man who understands the intrigues behind the case.
In the passage, Socrates makes use of division in his arrangement of arguments. Following the statement of facts, he gives an overview of the order that he intends to follow in addressing the issue beforehand. He states that he would not seek to cross-examine his older accusers. Instead, he moves straight ahead and addresses the accusations levied against him (Plato, 19b). That is intended to portray his wisdom by not engaging in a cyclical argument with his older accusers. It is evident that their prejudices were so deep-rooted that they could not be addressed in such an assembly.
Socrates then makes an attempt to provide proof that he is not guilty of the charges brought before him. He is of the view that despite his claim that he is a philosopher and a wise man, he does not have knowledge of the things that are beyond the earth and the sky (Plato, 19b). He also feigns interest in such matters. Additionally, Socrates denies charging any individual a fee for his advice as had been the case with sophists. Sophists engaged in the practice of teaching students interested in politics that a stronger argument could be overcome by a weaker argument (Plato, 19e). Therefore, by seeking to distance himself from the sophists and physicalists, Socrates seeks to vindicate his wisdom from unethical and immoral acts. The sophists and physicalists were seen as immoral people.
In his refutation, Socrates employs both pathos and logos. He argues that he has no problem with individuals that claim to have knowledge of that which is beyond the earth and the sky. However, despite his tolerance, he still does not believe that it is right (Plato, 20b). He argues that his tolerance of such individuals (physicalists) should not be construed to mean that he is one of them. Following such a logical appeal, Socrates might be making an attempt to appease those inclined towards the physicalists. At the same time, Socrates might be exploiting psychological weaknesses of the jury by showing empathy to such individuals instead of giving them unconditional support. He also attacks the character of one of his old accusers, Aristophanes. Aristophanes is a playwright who portrays Socrates as a flying balloon in one of his shows and for that reason given credence to the accusation that Socrates was a physicalist.
He repeats a similar technique when defending himself against the accusation of being a sophist. Being associated with sophists implies that he is corrupting the youth, hence the reason he is before the court. He plays the psychology of the jury by accepting that indeed great teachings have a price attached and that it is only fair that those that gain from such knowledge pay for the same (Plato, 19c). However, he sees the knowledge of politics as closely intertwined with moral virtue. To him, a political philosophy that did not inculcate moral virtue as part of its core founding was bound to fail. Therefore, making a claim that a weaker argument can overcome a stronger argument is in itself immoral. Secondly, he is of the view that moral virtue, unlike other teachings, does not have a monetary value. That proves the immorality of the sophists with whom he dissociated himself with as part of his defense.
The arrangement of Socrates’ defense serves an important purpose in making his case. By starting with the statement of facts, Socrates hopes to outline the main issues that ought to be considered before delivering a judgement. Again, he chooses not to cross-examine his accusers to avoid engaging in a prolonged and vicious cycle of argument. At the same time, he hopes to show his intellect by avoiding a discussion of issues which could not be addressed in such an assembly. Ultimately, Socrates hopes to show that moral virtue could not be separated from wisdom and the charges against him are baseless given his wisdom.
In conclusion, Socrates makes an effective use of the arrangement of his argument to draw the attention of the audience to his plight. He also uses the argument to make a persuasive claim that as a man of intellect, he could not have committed the atrocities that he is being accused of by the people. He achieves this by making a connection between moral virtue and wisdom and by projecting himself as a man of wisdom. He therefore seeks to divorce himself from any immoral acts as the charges levied against him suggest. Such an attempt is meant to make a persuasive claim that it is not possible to separate wisdom from moral virtue. Therefore, by being a man of wisdom, he could not have committed the atrocities that he is being accused of by the people of Athens.
Works Cited
Crider, Scott. F. The Office of Assertion. Wilmington: ISI Publishers, 2005. Print
Plato. The Apology. New York: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2013. Print
