Socrates is in a very tough situation throughout Plato's “Apology.” He is currently being charged with "corrupting the youth" and not recognizing the gods. And yet even though this section of Plato is called “The Apology,” it is by no means an actual apology. Socrates instead attempts to defend himself and his conduct instead of apologizing for it, even though that is exactly what he should be doing. Does Plato use this title to suggest how Socrates should have acted, or is he trying to show something about Socrates’ character through his use of irony?
Despite the fact that he is considered to be a poor speaker, Socrates pleads his case well. He provides a good argument with the judge, saying he will only speak the truth, since that is what he is accustomed to doing. Although he has little experience with the law, he uses his unique methods of preaching to try to convince the jury. People wonder how Socrates could persuade so many people with such a unique style of speech, but I think he does this by using the confidence that comes from recognizing his own ignorance. He accepts that he knows little of life but still desires to learn more. A lot of people would consider this lack of knowledge a form of weakness, but doesn’t it take a wise person to admit to ignorance? After all, there are plenty of people out there who pretend they are a lot more intelligent than they really are. This arrogance makes them less likely to learn at all.
People believe Socrates to be a very stubborn person as well. He would rather make a fool out of his accusers than actually be proven innocent. He sometimes cares more about image than what is really inside. This is proven when Socrates interrogates Meletus, and his primary concern is to embarrass Meletus rather than bring out the truth. Sometimes Socrates is so caught up in making others look bad and stubbornly refusing to do what they want that he gets himself caught up in an even bigger mess.
Ultimately, Socrates is found guilty and has to serve a punishment. However, Socrates offers to pay a fine, once again looking at things in a playful light when they are in reality a big deal. Naturally, the jury does not find his offer appropriate and sentences him to death. But doesn’t it seem likely that Socrates already knew they wouldn’t accept this offer? Maybe he did it on purpose to give himself the opportunity to say, in his typical manner, that he is not scared of death. He can then preach one last time when he says that no one really knows what afterlife is besides the gods, so how can one be scared of something he knows nothing about?
In the end, it is argued if Socrates was punished fairly or not. Yes, he was lawfully wrong in rebelling against the Greek beliefs, but wasn’t he in reality actually helping out the youth and educating them? People could argue that he actually showed them a deeper outlook on life and provided them with more insight through his rebellion.
6 comments:
Alana, you make a very good point and raise some good questions. After reading the “Apology” I too was wondering about the offer Socrates made to the jury and how he basically knew he was going to get the death penalty. The jury even told Socrates if he would stop philosophizing, then he would not be put to death, instead Socrates says that he never will give up what he believes in. I agree when you said he was ready for the death penalty because Socrates looked at it in 2 different ways, positive or negative, he tries to stay strong talking about this because he doesn’t want anyone to see his fear.
Also, many say that Socrates was corrupting the youth, but Socrates believes that the young children like to listen to him and it was more of the children’s father and relative who disliked Socrates and his philosophizing. In the end Socrates took the death penalty strong because he wanted to prove that he was not afraid to die, for something he believed he didn’t do (corrupting the youth).
Interesting points were made by the two of you. However, I would like to emphasize on the fact that Socrates did not give up his rights. He believes that he has a right to educate people through his beliefs. Of coarse the Human Rights Declaration was not created in that time period, but we can see how it ties into this situation. It's as if Socrates knew that such laws would be created in the future. He has a right to beliefs and a right to assembly to talk about his beliefs. To us, Socrates is not breaking the law, but in their society, he was. This is why he stated that he would rather die then stop philosophizing. He refused to give up his rights. It seems like Socrates' actions led to a change in society.
I agree with Alana completely. It seemed that Socrates was not even trying to defend himself. Yet he was telling the truth of the situation and philosophizing on what exactly happened. It seemed that he came in with the mind frame that he was already defeated and should die for the gods. Alana brings up a good point when she mentions the title of the chapter. It could be possible that Plato is suggesting if Socrates had apologized and expressed his sorrow he might have been saved. Yet Socrates went on his own path and just expressed his feelings and opinions to the jury. He explained how he was on a mission that was sent from god. I believe that Socrates made the right decision in standing up for what he believed in and not apologizing for something he did not intentionally do, even though it could of saved his life. Socrates took his penalty with open arms and looked at death with a positive view point. Socrates believes he will be better off spending time with all those great philosophers who have passed on.
Actually, I don’t think the title of this chapter is referring to an apology in the sense of expressing regret, but rather an argument where someone is defending himself for some kind of justification. The second definition also often has a religious affiliation with it, which makes it more applicable. In this case, the “Apology” would apply to the chapter perfectly, for obvious reasons.
As for his punishment, I think Socrates asked for the punishment that he thought he deserved. Since he had never intended to “corrupt the youth” nor did he see anything wrong in what he had been doing, he asked for a fine or banishment as a punishment. He didn’t think his “crime” deserved death but if the law commanded it then he would follow through. The reason he wanted to live was to continue learning and becoming wiser to try and rid of some ignorance, not because he was afraid of death. I definitely agree on that point.
Now to the last question…”but wasn’t he in reality actually helping out the youth and educating them?” In our society today, yes, Socrates was helping and educating the youth. However, back then, he most definitely was not. Questioning the wise and shooting down their beliefs? Absolutely unacceptable! Education for the Greek back then was not about learning true facts of the world (like it is today). Education was all religious beliefs and thoughts and ideas passed down from the elders. What was known was accepted, and that was the way ideas were taught.
Andrea is right in saying that Apology does not mean expressing regret, but it does not have a religious affiliation either. Etymologically, "apo" means "from, or off" and "logy" means "speech." So during Plato's time, an apology was a speech in defense.
I also disagree with your disparagement of Socrates in the third paragraph. Firstly, he's not stubborn, he's steadfast. And in making fools out of his accusers, by showing how their accusations were contradictory, he actually was proving his innocence.
Interesting comments and post. I can't help but think that the basic disagreements about Socrates' motives and position mirror, completely, the distrust that Socrates' contemporaries had of him.
Some questions:
1) Is Socrates' confidence in his knowledge of his ignorance more important than what he does know, as opposed to those who dont' know what they profess to know? Your question is directed towards the emotional state of Socrates' person and this is interesting.
2) Why do you think Socrates his stubborn? Certainly he does make his accusers seem foolish. But if they are foolish, then is his mockery ill-intentioned? This seems like the question that must be answered before deciding if Socrates is stubborn. In particular, what is Socrates saying that avoids the truth and focuses on belittling others?
3) Socrates' reaction to his punishment does betray a certain nonchalance, but it does so only because we think that the penalty, or the consequences of his guilt, are serious. But doesn't it seem silly, perhaps pathetic, of Socrates to try to convince others that he is not scared of death? Why would he need to convince them?
5) WHat are the Greek beliefs that he was rebelling against? Was he really rebelling against them? Also, and I hate to say it, but it seems important to me to be precise, does a "deeper outlook on life" really describe what Socrates' intends to pass on? It sounds like you think that Socrates is a teacher, although he so clearly argues that he is not. SO I guess I wonder why you think that.
Post a Comment