A Critique of Socrates” Guilt within the Apology

This paper offers a quick touch upon the cost of Socrates being concerned with “criminal meddling”. The paper is argued as a case of law.

A Brief Comment on the Query: “Is Socrates Guilty As Charged?” In any case of regulation, when one is considering truth and justice, one must first have a look at the validity of the court docket and of the entity of authority itself. In Socrates case, the scenario is not any different. One may be said to be guilty or not of any mentioned crime, however the true measure of guilt or innocence is simply as legitimate as the courtroom structure to which it’s topic to.

Therefore, in considering whether Socrates is ‘guilty or not’, we should keep in mind the societal norms and standards of Athens at the time, and the legitimacy of his accusers and the validity of the crimes that he allegedly committed. Having said this, we must first have a look at the affidavit of the trial, what exactly Socrates was being accused with: “Socrates does injustice and is meddlesome, by investigating the things underneath the earth and the heavenly things, and by making the weaker speech the stronger, and by teaching others these same things.

”1 In breaking this charge down, we see that it’s two-fold. Firstly, Socrates is expenses with impiety, a person who doesn’t consider in the state gods of Athens and, not only that, however by its literal meaning, does not consider in the authority of gods at all. To this, Socrates appears baffled.

He states that the reason behind the ‘criminal meddling’, the questioning of people’s knowledge, was commissioned to him by the gods by way of the Oracle of Delphi. As Socrates said, “…but when god stationed me, as I supposed and assumed, ordering me to stay philosophizing and analyzing myself and others…that my complete care is to commit no unjust or impious deed.”2He even seems to win a victory over considered one of his accusers, Meletus, in questioning this level. As Socrates factors out, it is impossible for him to be both atheistic and to imagine in demons, or false gods, for if he believes in the latter, then that would contradict his not believing in gods at all (since even demons are thought of to be a minimum of demi-gods). The second part of the charge was that Socrates was attacking the very material of the Athenian society by corrupting its residents, namely the youth. In different phrases, Meletus and the opposite accusers are accusing Socrates of a crime of ‘non-conformity’ – instead of bowing to those who are held in locations of authority and folks who have reputations of being wise, Socrates believes that it is his role in life to query these individuals in their knowledge, and to reveal those that declare that they’re knowledgeable and wise, but who really are not. This nation of questioning the legitimacy of those in energy will surely not be referred to as a ‘crime’ by today’s standards, nor would it really have in Athenian time. The true nature of this charge was vengeance carried out on the part of the power-holders of Athenian society: the politicians, poets, guide artisans. Socrates, in effect, made fools out of those folks, exposing their speeches are mere rhetoric than precise knowledge and data. By being a teacher as such, however never collecting any fees and due to this fact innocent from profiting from such ventures, he was mentioned to have been corrupting and citizens of Athens into believing that these so-called folks of wisdom weren’t really sensible in any respect. As Socrates says, “…and this is what will convict me, if it does convict me: not Meletus of Antyus, however the envy and slander of the various. This has convicted many different good men too, and I suppose it’s going to additionally convict me. And there is no danger that it’ll stop me.”3 Another point to be made is that Socrates proves that if what he has accomplished has really been corrupting society, and could be thought of a felony offense, then he has not triggered any hurt voluntarily. In any legal charge, the fact of the accused’s mens rea, or ‘guilty mind’, can be obligatory to show on a guilty charge. But Socrates states that, at least for him, voluntarily corrupting any human being would merely be impossible, “…I am not even cognizant that if I ever do one thing wretched to any of my associates, I will risk getting back one thing bad from him?”4 Although his ‘guilty mind’ was by no means proved, Socrates does understand that he might be discovered guilty of this charge, although he does say that justly this would by no means have been a felony charge, but may have been handled privately, “…and if I corrupt involuntarily, the law is not that you simply deliver me in here for such involuntary wrongs, but that you simply take me aside in private to show and admonish me…where the legislation is to herald those in want of punishment, not learning.”5 There is one other level that could be raised in questioning the legitimacy of the trial, and that’s the incontrovertible fact that it was carried out in only one day. Socrates says after his verdict has been learn that if his trial may have carried on for a longer time frame, because it might need in other cities corresponding to Sparta, then he may need been capable of convince the jury of his innocence. Alas, Socrates shortly turned the sufferer of the rich elites in Athenian society, who didn’t want their hold on the facility and minds of the the rest of society who be tampered with. If justice is to be questioned in the cost of Socrates, then I do suppose that Socrates should have been discovered innocent, since no actual crimes had been dedicated. As for a question of the Athenian laws, and the structure of the Athenian justice system, one could say that Socrates may need dabbled in a bit of treason in a method, since those who he was publicly making a mockery out of have been those that had been in positions of authority. But total, it cannot be denied that Socrates suffered an excellent injustice by being found responsible, by being placed on trial in the first place. The true substance of the trial was never a criminal matter nor a strain on democracy, but a challenge to an oppressive and oligarcical ruling class, and Socrates became an image of true knowledge and knowledge, an emblem that wanted to be disposed of for the elites to stay the power-holders in society. List of Works Cited Plato. “The Apology of Socrates.” West, Thomas G. and West, Grace Starry, eds. Plato and Aristophanes: Four Texts on Socrates. Itacha, NY: Cornell University Press, 1984. 1Plato, “The Apology of Socrates,” Thomas G. West and Grace Starry West, eds., Plato and Aristophanes: Four Texts on Socrates. (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1984), s.19c, p.66. 2Ibid, s.29a/32d, p.80/p.eighty five. 3Ibid, s.28b, p.seventy nine. 4Ibid, s.25e, p.seventy five. 5Ibid, s.26a, p.75.

We will be happy to hear your thoughts

Leave a reply