The apology how does socrates defend himself

To prove Meletus wrong, Socrates undertakes to show that he must believe in gods of some sort. He suggests that it would be impossible to believe in human matters without believing in human beings, or in equine matters without believing in horses, or in musical matters without believing in musicians, and so it must analogously be impossible to believe in supernatural matters without believing in supernatural beings.

But the affidavit Meletus himself drew up against Socrates claims that Socrates believes--and teaches others to believe--in supernatural matters. That must imply, then, that Socrates believes in supernatural beings. Since the only kinds of supernatural beings, according to Socrates, are gods and children of the gods, it must follow that Socrates believes in gods, contrary to Meletus' initial assertion.

This is the only appearance in The Apology of a speaker other than Socrates, and it is the only instance of the elenchus. However, the dialogue is disappointingly poor, and the reasoning on both sides is shoddy. While most of Socrates' cross-examinations bear the careful consideration of a curious inquirer, this exchange is bitter and dismissive. Socrates does not even pretend to have an interest in identifying the source of Meletus' views.

Instead, he sets out to dismiss Meletus as mean-spirited and ignorant. Throughout, Socrates bullies Meletus, mocking him and pushing him to answer more quickly.

On a more serious note, he rejects prison and exile, offering perhaps instead to pay a fine. When the jury rejects his suggestion and sentences him to death, Socrates stoically accepts the verdict with the observation that no one but the gods know what happens after death and so it would be foolish to fear what one does not know. He also warns the jurymen who voted against him that in silencing their critic rather than listening to him, they have harmed themselves much more than they have harmed him.

SparkTeach Teacher's Handbook. Summary Summary Context 17a - 18a 18a - 20c 20c - 24e 24b - 28a 28a - 32e 32e - 35d 35e - 38b 38c - 42a. Summary Summary. What is a fishbowl activity? What happens during a Socratic Circle? How do you lead a Socratic Seminar? What are the four elements of a Socratic Seminar? Why are Socratic seminars beneficial? Previous Article Is Jane Eyre independent?

Ben Davis December 17, Who crosses Socrates examine? Who is Plato and Socrates? What was Socrates known for? Who is the best philosopher of all time? How did Thales change the world? What is Miletus called today? Previous Article Why do you believe in superstitions? Next Article Who wrote the song hair? Back To Top. In this particular instance, it allows for the fact that Plato's conception of Socrates may be idealized to some extent, and it is quite possible that in some cases he may have reported what he thinks ought to have been said rather than what Socrates did say.

Even so, after allowing for these limitations, we must recognize that Plato's understanding of Socrates and the manner of his defense is probably as close to the actual facts as it is humanly possible for one to attain. This is indicated by a number of different facts. In the first place, the Apology is the one dialog in which Plato is referred to as one who was present at the trial.

This makes his writing the testimony of an eyewitness. Again, the account appears to have been written shortly after the trial, in which case any in-accuracies or falsifications would have been detected by others who were familiar with the circumstances. Finally, the account in the Apology is in harmony with the reports given by Xenophon and other writers, and it is also consistent with references to the trial found in the other Platonic dialogs.

There is a bit of irony in Socrates' reference to the manner of his speech. The so-called rhetoricians of his day were noted for their eloquence, which usually consisted of an emotional appeal designed to win the approval of the audience rather than an attempt to make a clear presentation of the relevant facts. In claiming that he is not a rhetorician, Socrates wants to make it clear that he does not employ speech for the purpose of swaying the feelings of his audience. The only kind of rhetoric for which he has any use is that of making a presentation of facts in language so clear that all can understand.

Plato's purpose in writing this dialog included something more than a historical interest. He wanted to present Socrates in the role of a martyr, using that term in the very best sense of the word.

It was the character of the man as seen from within that was especially noteworthy. In the case of Socrates, martyrdom was an exaltation, something more than an untimely death of one who had been treated unjustly. Here was a man who, in obedience to a divine command, had spent his life in devotion to the public good and who would not stoop to save his own life, if by so doing he would have to compromise with his own conscience.

In making his defense, Socrates says that he will reply to each of two kinds of accusation. The first one is general in character and has to do with much of the public opinion that has arisen in opposition to him. The second one is more specific and seems quite probable that this is the one for which he has been indicted and brought to trial.

The first one is related to the actual trial only in an indirect way. It is, however, necessary to deal with it at some length in order to prepare the way for a proper understanding of the case that is under consideration by the jury. It is also true that Socrates' reply to the first accusation throws a great deal of light on the situation as a whole inasmuch as it reveals certain predominant traits of character of both the accuser and the accused.

As a result of Socrates' manner of living, a number of popular stories had arisen concerning him. Some of them were of a humorous nature and were never intended to be taken seriously but were regarded as nothing more than a joke about some of his peculiarities. This seems to have been the case when Aristophanes caricatured him in the comedy called The Clouds. Socrates had accepted it as good fun and even appeared to be amused by it.

Nevertheless, stories of this kind do have some effect on popular opinion, and there are always some people who put a wrong interpretation on them. Other stories are of a more serious nature in that they contain inaccuracies and are often confused with data that are entirely irrelevant to the activities of the person to whom they are attributed.

This is what happened when Socrates was credited with certain doctrines that had been taught by Anaxagoras, the physical scientist. It had also been rumored that Socrates was one who charged fees for his instruction and was, therefore, interested in making money for himself. Socrates had no difficulty in replying to rumors of this type. He had never been interested in the physical sciences, although he was familiar with the theories of Anaxagoras.

Anyone who was well informed would not have attributed theories about the sun and moon to Socrates, whose interests had always been along other lines. Certainly Meletus was foolish to suppose the judges would not be aware of his mistake. As to the rumor that Socrates charged fees for his instruction, any one of those who had listened to him could testify to the fact that he never made any charges for his services.

In fact, he had good reasons for refusing to take money for what he was doing. He did not believe it was proper to place a money value on truth or the process of teaching people to think for themselves. Further than this, he did not want to exclude anyone from his services because they did not have the money to pay for them. Teaching people to improve themselves by learning how to think clearly and correctly was in his judgment the most valuable service that he could render, and he would have it available for all who would take advantage of it, regardless of their ability to pay, their social position, or any other consideration.

This did not mean that he believed it was wrong for any teacher to charge for his instruction if he felt the need for so doing. Socrates even commended Evenus for charging so modest a rate of his pupils.

The story about the oracle of Delphi and the statement attributed to it concerning Socrates being the wisest man in Athens is another example of Socratic irony. Whether the story is to be regarded as literally true may be doubtful, but the purpose for which the story is used is clear enough.

It was designed to expose the false claims of those who pretended to be something that they were not. Because the Athenians did not have an authoritative book comparable to the Bible for Christians and Jews or the Koran for the followers of Mohammed, it was customary to consult the local divinities concerning matters of importance that could not be settled by ordinary means.

Except at Delphi, there was no caste of priestly interpreters. In order to obtain answers to religious questions, intellectual Athenians would consult the popular poets, with their many stories having to do with the activities of the gods recognized by the state.

Socrates did not accept these stories about the gods. One reason for rejecting them was the fact that the gods were credited with immoral acts of a type that would never be tolerated among human beings. Socrates believed the gods were good. He did not believe in the dark and disturbing legends that were being circulated about them. At any rate, he was distrustful of the poets and had little if any faith in the local divinities, although he did take seriously the voice, or daemon, that would speak to him on certain occasions, telling him what not to do.

Regardless of Socrates' personal convictions, the majority of Athenians did believe in the oracle of Delphi, and so it was possible to use this story as a means for exposing the false pretenses of those who claimed to have great wisdom but actually understood very little, if anything, concerning some of the most important problems pertaining to human life.

The statement attributed to the oracle of Delphi could be made to harmonize with Socrates' admission of his own ignorance by pointing out that he was aware of his own ignorance, while those who claimed to be wise were not conscious of their own limitations.

Having dispensed with some of the false and idle rumors that had been in circulation concerning him and having exposed some of the false pretenses on the part of his accusers, Socrates proceeds to make his reply to the main charge that has led to his indictment.

Meletus appears to be the chief prosecutor, although Anytus was in all likelihood the one who instigated the charge. They accused Socrates of being an evil person who does not believe in the gods of the state and who corrupts the youth by causing them to lose confidence in the government that has jurisdiction over them.

Insofar as the charge against Socrates was that he did not believe in the gods recognized by the state, there can be no question about his being guilty. By his own admission, he did not accept many of the popular views concerning the Athenian gods, but this was by no means the only reason or even the main one for his being brought to trial. Although it was the stated reason for his indictment, the actual reason seems to have been the fact that his teachings were regarded as dangerous to those who were in positions of power.

Athens was being ruled at this time by a democratic form of government, and if it could be made to appear that Socrates was an enemy of democracy, this would go a long way toward arousing popular sentiment against him. It would indicate that his teachings might constitute a threat to the conventional standards and customs of the day. In making his defense, Socrates did not attempt to prove that he was innocent of the charge of disbelief in the Athenian gods.

Instead, he addressed himself to the larger implications involved in the so-called crimes of which he had been accused.