Plato’s The Apology

Plato’s The Apology discusses Socrates’ trial speech. He was punished by the law court for failing to recognize the gods, which the state did. Socrates created new idols and influenced the thinking of Athenians’ youth. As a result, the voice is not an apology in the modern sense of the word. Socrates tries to justify himself and his actions rather than apologizing for them. The accusations leveled against Socrates stemmed from a general bias that had developed around him over time. The fake representations of Socrates arose from a misconception of his practices. The aim of this paper is to dissect Plato’s work The apology. The manner in which Socrates talks can be termed as solidly plain. He alludes that he has no familiarity with the courts. He thus affirms that he will talk in a way that he is used to. With objectivity and honesty, he expounds that his attitude originates from a revelation by the Delphi oracle. This oracle claimed that among all men he was wise and thus endowed with wisdom. He discovered his ignorance in a majority of globe activities that he as engaged in. He ascertains to be wise than fellow men you must know nothing (Burnet 50). Thus, disseminate his knowledge he claims to have a duty to question wise men. Another task of Socrates was to expose the false intelligence as ignorance.

These contributions done by Socrates gained him a lot of respect from the young men living in Athens. In addition, much more disguise from the people he humiliated from his exposure of their ignorance. He references the trial to be because of contempt from exposure termed as ignorance (Cornford 325). Socrates continues to question Miletus who was responsible for summoning Socrates to court. His talks with Miletus were in vain since it was directed at humiliating Miletus rather than seeking for the fact.

Significantly, in a popular context, Socrates associates to resemble gadfly that stings a horse. That refers to the Athens state in his absence the country false into a deep sleep. Without his influences, so annoying to some it can be re-awakening and produce a virtual activity (Burnet 56). Socrates is found culpable by a minute range and requested to suggest a punishment. He jokingly says that to get what he deserves he should be appreciated by an offer of a meal. To that regard, he gave the state a service that was of a more significant value. He rejects prison, exile, and opting to pay a fine. The jury disagreed with Socrates and sentences him to death he stoically accepts the decision.

When he accepted the verdict, he had an opinion that none other than god understands what happens when people die. He argues that it is not wise to fear what one does not know anything about it. He gives a warning to the jurymen who voted against him that it would have been better to hear his criticism than to silence him. In contrary, the jury would feel the consequence of their decision rather than putting harm on Socrates works of criticism. Socrates was termed as a wrongdoer because he speculates on heaven, which is beyond the earth (Burnet 60). He sought for a natural explanation of complex phenomena, such as the geological and astronomical. He would have instead attributed the physical phenomenon to god. Socrates was interested in science in his early life, and later on stressed on epistemological an ethical inquiries. He makes a weak reason he was accused of being a sophist Aristophanes` cloud play had portrayed Socrates as a sophist thirty-five years ago.

Moreover, the presupposing reason of Socrates reluctance to plead to a lesser charge. In addition, the thought behind the refusal of Socrates to go to exile poses a hypothesis. Socrates understanding is that there is no worth of living if there is no right choice making. He had noted that he cannot change his soul, and thus if he went elsewhere he would continue with his questioning. Citizens of other states will adhere to his interrogations rather than Athenians. Apparently, in his country, he would be expelled and encounter much more consequences (Russon 100). The absence of compromise on Socrates stand led the court to condemn him with a death penalty. Socrates put his claims on the fact that, he was following the god’s order of putting his colleagues into an examination.

Considering, the question of Chaerephon to the Delphic oracle if there was a wiser man than Socrates. Socrates did not view himself as thoughtful but only through his questioning. Thus, he realized that through his criticism that he had to prove the assertion of the oracle’s believe in his wisdom (Russon 110). Socrates answered to the court wisely showing the attributes of a sophist nature. Taylor alludes that Socrates does not take accusation made against him severe his play is ironical towards the accusers. He affirms that the act of corrupting the youth is a heavy charge affecting all the philosophers.

The accusation may be a standard feature among the sophist, such kind of protection is illogical to Socrates state. The relevant question is whether the allegation is true or false in this case. Socrates emphasizes on the lack of wit and states to know nothing hence how does he teach young people anything. If a young person were corrupted, then the influence would not be deliberate. Taylor views Socrates standpoint as of doctrine evil is not done by one voluntarily (Cornford 328). This was an odd to protect Socrates because of his contradictory statement. Socrates supported that individuals are legible for our knowledge or lack of it. Unintended activity result from lack of knowledge and a person is answerable to situations that have not been explained.

He postulates the idea ad ignorantiam view that supports that no individual in the current situation has been corrupted by information. Whereas in the law court there must be proof of prosecution and testimony on the charges. The argument put by Socrates is the ad ignorantiam fallacy. There is no evidence that individuals have been corrupted. In addition, from that fact, it is indeed true that no one has been corrupted (Russon 120). Socrates gives series of dilemma situation to stress on this argument. He is of the opinion that if he drives the young men away, they will convince their parents to expel him. Moreover, the side of allowing them to stay their fathers will discharge Socrates. On the kind of impact, he has caused in their sons through his activities. Therefore, the parents or the fathers will either be swayed to dismiss him.

The use of the dilemma is a sense of sophist rhetoric that is vital in court but irrelevant. In refuting a dilemma, you take it by its horns; this shows that one situation is not exact. For instance, Socrates drives the young men away and unlikely creating the impression of parents expelling him. There is also the escape between the horns here it shows that the disjunction is false. Socrates could not prove that young men could stay and listen to his ideas. Setting up a counter dilemma, this is negating the consequences of a condition and changing them for a new situation (Russon 125). Socrates believes that you should do the right thing regardless of matters of life and death. Death should not be feared and that no harm comes to a right person.

It can be asserted that it is essential to make a right decision regarding life situation. Socrates makes a wise choice despite the death verdict put on him. Socrates points out that it is vital to work for the good of the soul concerning knowledge and doing what is right. Not on the point of freedom and physical pain put on someone. If the soul is centered, what is done later plays no crucial role.

Works Cited

Burnet, John. “Plato’s Euthyphro, Apology of Socrates, and Crito.” (1925).

Cornford, Francis Macdonald. “The” Polytheism“ of Plato: An Apology.” Mind 47.187 (1938): 321-330.

Russon, John, and Patricia Fagan. Reexamining Socrates in the Apology. Northwestern University Press, 2009.