NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
Trail and Death of Socrates One of the most famous philosophers of our history Socrates had lived his last days in a pretty controversial way. He was accused for several faults that he was barely aware of. There was a trial, which raises a definite question of whether or not this trial, as well as its outcomes, was just. In order to answer this question in an appropriate way, we must turn our attention to the existing, probably the most reliable, information source that survived up till nowadays. This is the well-known Apology of Socrates. We have here the stenography of philosophers defense at the final trial of 399 BC, which survived to our days in two different and independent copies, one of which was written and edited by his famous student and follower Plato, and another by his philosopher friend - Xenophon.
Unfortunately these copies possess a certain portion of writers view points since there were no official court records made during the process. First of all, we must define the correct meaning of the word apology that is used in our context. Socrates was not apologizing or making excuses in front of his accusers, the Greek word apologia clearly and precisely meant a defense speech. Although it was the trial of Socrates life, it was not arranged according to the correct procedures. The prosecutors of Socrates were private individuals and the defendant himself did not possess an attorney. Besides, throughout the text, Apology has no reference to the existence of the judge at the trial; the only authority present is the jury, which was in good time warned of the defendants flowery eloquence, thus making the process deliberately prejudged.
In addition to all of the above it is obvious that Socrates behaves himself at the trial in somewhat self-accusative way. His intent was not to prove owns innocence but to convince others in the unfairness of the existing laws and judging procedures. The process of the trial is that the prosecutor or prosecutors make their speeches accusing the defendant, and then the defendant makes his defense speech. After the defense, the jury votes innocent or guilty followed by the verdict, in his turn the defendant has the right to propose a counter-penalty, after which the jury votes once again as to accept his proposal or not. The trial concludes with defendants last word spoken after he knows the sentence. Anytos, the owner of the leather workshops and a very influential person in the Democratic Party, a fierce antagonist of the Sophism initiated the trial over Socrates, but Meets, a young tragic poem writer who planned to gain popularity by defeating Socrates, was the formal accuser.
The charge consisted of three parts: 1. Godlessness of Socrates; 2. Propagation of new Gods by philosopher; 3. Corruption of the young generation. Let us now examine the course of the trial and see which key points determined its outcome. I think it is inappropriate to be examining whether the court was held justly against Socrates, since the outcome was obvious for both parties of the trial from the very beginning of it.
It is impossible for the process to be fair when it comes to its planned outcome. The swindlers of thinking could not forgive Socrates for his devastating irony. The Trial begins with the illustration of philosophers unconcealed irony with which he addresses to the jury and the accusers. Socrates gives the jury numerous recommendations on how to be a good jury.
Now how would someone like it, when another person constantly gives recommendations on the subject that he supposedly has no idea about? I would say that by doing so Socrates expresses his indifference and disrespect towards the trial, and makes the accusers and the jury even angrier with him. The first impression supports the image of Socrates as of one who possesses evil and corrupt eloquence. The philosopher explains him being called an accomplished speaker and mentions that it is true when it has a meaning of being an honest speaker, but if it means speaking in embroidered and stylized phrases, like his accusers, then he is not like that. Rather than that Socrates refers to his manner of speaking as things spoken at random and expressed in the first words that come to mind. We already know that Socrates did not prepare for his defense; he just walked into the court and relied upon the course of action.
One of the most celebrated orators of ancient Greece Lysias composed an oration, in a labored and pathetic style, which he offered to Socrates to be pronounced in his defense in the presence of the judges. Socrates refused it and instead informed the jury that he has never been to the court before, so he will be speaking in his usual manner, and there is no need for him or for the court to accommodate to each other. It seems that Socrates was defending himself only because of the requirement of the law that the convict must speak in his defense. There were no signs of philosophers forethought to avoid the sentence, the structure of his monologues is clear, though with a part of peculiar to Socrates irony.
There is another interpretation of the Apology of Socrates. This is the one that was presented by his friend Xenophon, who raises the question of Socrates atheism. The writer wonders how did the jury manage to persuade the dwellers of Athens that Socrates was one while he was constantly seen sacrificing at home and on the common altars of the city. Xenophon remarks, It was evident that Socrates worshipped the Gods the most of all men. Many times in his defense Socrates mentions of the jury and accusers as of younger generation.
We must remember that in those days it was not usual for people to live up to seventy years (like Socrates at the time of this court), and an average life span of people was close to 35 years. The philosopher stresses on the fact that most of the people present do not know him by his deeds, only by the reputation that circulates in the society. How can people who have not lived even half of what Socrates have judge one? Also Socrates mentions that court considers some of the Lying accusations that have been made against him many years ago, and which he never bothered to respond to. Therefore by most the court is judging the philosopher of his past.
Often the prosecutors accuse Socrates of Sophism. Socrates rejects the prosecution with the following statement: ... talking a lot of other nonsense about things of which I know nothing at all. This is a fundamental feature of the defense of Socrates in his apology to the accuses he faces in his final trial: his accusers attribute all sorts of ideas and attitudes to Socrates that have nothing to do with him. Later on Socrates gives a very distinct feature that separates him from Sophists charge a fee...
The philosopher has never been that concerned with money as Sophists were. Quite the contrary Socrates claims that his mission is in service to God. This is to condemn peoples pursuit of money, honor, and reputation, while ignoring wisdom, truth, and the improvement of the soul. In his speech Socrates ignores his own well being he views the trial as another opportunity to strengthen his spiritual powers and freedom. He tells the jury about their responsibility to ignore the appeals to pity and judge the truth. I think the jury was waiting to hear that and eventually sentenced Socrates to death but the philosopher replies that it is not of a threat to him, he argues that death might be good: either it will be a dreamless sleep, or he will travel to the place of the dead where he can question anyone and not be executed for it.
He states: No evil can happen to a good man. From the conceptual standpoint we may conclude that this whole process was unjust, and made up. The accusers were just very unsatisfied with the personality of the Socrates and with his philosophical views upon different issues. At the same time the accusers wanted to achieve their private goals by defeating such a prominent and controversial person as Socrates. As for me, I think the only way for Socrates to avoid being sentenced to death would be through lying and accompanying the court. Of course I would recommend Socrates to be a little more self-restrained when it comes to speaking of his opinion about others.
But it would involve renunciation the ideas and postulates that the philosopher popularized during his life. Till the very end of his days Socrates followed the principles of staying true to oneself and beliefs, and searching for truth by way of reason. I am sure that Socrates Apology was the farewell gift that philosopher presented to the society. In his defense speech he proclaimed it as a lesson to us all: by killing of a wise and noble man, it is the society that suffers the most by depriving itself of the stimulating force of seeking, critical, and disturbingly thinking mind. Socrates has intentionally come to the trial unarmed, he was not thinking of his salvation. He has already lived a full and wonderful life, and was thinking of the final masterpiece of philosophical reasoning and argumentation to give to people.
And of course it would be impolite to prevent the person from achieving that goal. Bibliography West, Thomas G. Plato's Apology of Socrates: An Interpretation, With a New Translation. Cornwell University Press: 1979.
Free research essays on topics related to: apology, accusers, socrates, philosopher, jury
Research essay sample on Apology Of Socrates Socrates Mentions Trial
