Apology by Plato free essay sample

The Apology is an account by Plato of Socrates’ speech given at his trial in 399 BC. Socrates was an Athenian philosopher accused of two crimes: corrupting the youth and not believing in the gods. In Socrates’ speech, he explains to a jury of 501 Athenians why he is not guilty of the crimes he is accused of. He uses a variety of logical arguments to refute his charges yet in the end he is still found guilty and sentenced to death (Grube 21). Socrates’ use of logos and his absence of the use of pathos makes for an extremely logical speech, however his guilty verdict raises questions about the legal systems and society of Athens at the time, the importance of ethos when defending yourself in the court of law, and even the society of modern day. For the majority of his life, Socrates spent a good deal of his time asking questions of the people of Athens. His goal was to arrive at a set of political and ethical truths. Contrary to many people at the time, Socrates did not lecture about the things he knew; he actually claimed to be rather ignorant. He claimed he was wise only because he recognized his ignorance and did not claim to know what he did not know (Grube 26). The questions Socrates asked forced his audiences to think through a problem and arrive at a logical conclusion. At times, the answers seemed so obvious his opponents often looked foolish. His â€Å"Socratic Method† of questioning as it came to be called later, was adored by Socrates’ followers but despised by others throughout Athens (â€Å"Socrates Biography. †). Five years prior to 399 BC, Athens had just suffered a defeat to the Spartans, bringing an end to the Peloponnesian War. Its once strong democracy was taken over by Thirty Tyrants for nine months who executed over one thousand Athenians. However, by the end of nine months, an army of democrats restored democracy to Athens, but not without losing significant power in the Greek world (Colaiaco 13). This political turmoil and fear of losing more power in Greece set the stage for Socrates’ trial. Socrates begins his speech by establishing his ethos, meaning his credibility as a speaker. However, he does so in an unconventional matter. Rather than boasting of his speaking abilities and asserting himself as a wise and reliable source of information, he instead begins by saying, â€Å"I show myself not to be an accomplished speaker at all. † He even says that he was almost â€Å"carried away† by his accusers during their speech due to their persuasive speaking (Grube 22). Socrates goes on to say that he does not know the correct way to speak in the court of law, so the jury will have to excuse his unusual dialect (23). Socrates’ opening statements probably seemed absurd to the 501 jurors. Why would a man on trial and facing death begin his speech by claiming to be a terrible speaker? Socrates set up his speech this way for a specific reason. Besides the main two accusations against Socrates, corrupting the youth and being an atheist, he was also accused of making the weaker argument into the stronger (24). Due to this accusation, Socrates may have felt the need to downplay his speaking skills to the jurors. The jury could have been biased going into the trial thinking that no matter what Socrates said they should not believe him because of his reputation as a â€Å"persuasive† speaker. By weakening his ethos at the beginning of his speech, Socrates could then go on to give an argument that would be less affected by the jury’s previous opinion of him. As the speech goes on, he begins to subtly build his ethos back up. Within the claims he makes to the audience, he references witnesses as proof to the claims rather than just his spoken word. For example, when explaining to the jury that he possesses â€Å"human wisdom† he says, â€Å"I will refer to a trustworthy source. I shall call upon the god at Delphi as witness to the existence and nature of my wisdom† (25). Rather than simply making a claim to the jury, he backs up his claim with a witness, and a respected witness at that, a God. This technique forces the jurors who may still be wary about the trustworthiness of Socrates due to his persuasive reputation to believe him. Additionally, it proves that Socrates does in fact believe in the gods contrary to the accusations made against him. He then goes on to criticize his accusers, (Meletus, Anytus, and Lycon), using logical arguments to make their accusations seem unthoughtful and rash, which in turn destroys their ethos (30). After Socrates’ initial introduction, he begins laying out his arguments against his accusations with the use of logos, or persuasion by means of logic and reasoning. Socrates begins first with the claim that he corrupts the youth. He directly asks Meletus who he thinks â€Å"improves† the youth. Meletus first responds with â€Å"the laws,† but Socrates refuses to accept that answer. He wants to know exactly who improves them. Meletus goes on to say after a bit more questioning that all of Athens improves the youth besides Socrates. This opens the door for Socrates to use his first logical appeal. He asks Meletus, â€Å"Tell me: does this also apply to horses, do you think? That all men improve them and one individual corrupts them? † (Grube 29). Socrates says this is absurd and that it is in fact the opposite. He declares that only a few people who are actually horse breeders can improve horses, and that the majority would corrupt them. Using this example, Socrates claims that it must be the same with humans and subtly hints that he is actually the one improving all of Athens whereas the majority are the ones corrupting it. After this explanation, Socrates states that Meletus has not given any thought about the accusations he has brought Socrates to trial for (30). The combination of Socrates’ logical appeal and his attack on Meletus’ character makes the jury question Meletus’ ethos as Socrates prepares for his next argument, which is another appeal to the claim that he corrupts the youth. He asks Meletus, â€Å"does the man exist who would rather be harmed than benefited by his associates? † Meletus answers no. Socrates then asks Meletus whether he thinks Socrates corrupts the youth deliberately or by accident, and Meletus answers deliberately. Next, Socrates explains that if those two statements are true, he cannot be guilty. It would be senseless for him to corrupt the youth because if he did he would be at risk of being harmed him in some way by them too. Likewise, if Socrates did corrupt them, he would be doing so unintentionally. In that case, Socrates says his wrongdoings should simply be pointed out and corrected, not put on trial in the court of law (30). At this point in the speech, Socrates has countered the first accusation against him but is still faced with refuting the second. On top of corrupting the youth, Meletus claims that Socrates does not believe in the Gods. Socrates starts his argument by once again trying to make Meletus out to be an unreliable source lacking ethos. He mocks Meletus’ accusation against him by saying, â€Å"’Socrates is guilty of not believing in the gods, but believing in gods,’ and surely that is the part of a jester! † (Grube 31). Socrates goes on to explain this statement in further detail proving why Meletus’ claims are so absurd. He asks Meletus, â€Å"Does any man believe in spiritual activities who does not believe in spirits? † Meletus reluctantly answers that no one does. Socrates then points out that Meletus says that he believes in â€Å"spiritual activities† which sets up Socrates’ next question. He asks, â€Å"Do we not believe spirits to be either gods or the children of gods? Yes or no? † Meletus agrees that this is true. Finally, with the information gathered from questioning, Socrates constructs his logical argument. He pronounces that if it is true that he believes in spirits, and spirits are either gods or children of the gods, Meletus’ argument is invalid and contradictory (32). Socrates is trying to convey to the jury that if the answers to his questions are true as Meletus says himself they are, Socrates must be undeniably not guilty, for in order to prove his guilt, the questions would have to be false. Socrates’ speech is full of logical arguments, but it is almost entirely lacking of any pathos, meaning appeals to the jury’s emotions. However, Socrates is almost proud of this fact. Towards the end of his speech he talks about his reasoning for not using pathos. Socrates describes a man on trial who begged and pleaded with the jury, and who brought his children, family, and friends in an attempt to evoke pity from the jurors. He then says, â€Å"I do none of these things, even though I may seem to be running the ultimate risk† (Grube 38). Socrates says that to do such things â€Å"would be a disgrace† (39). He feels that appealing to the jury’s emotions in an attempt to achieve innocence is dishonorable and unjust. Socrates strongly believes in the difference between right and wrong and the value of his reputation when it comes to those aspects of life. He says, â€Å"I do not think it right to supplicate the jury and to be acquitted because of this, but to teach and persuade them† (39). Socrates would rather argue his case honorably using his methods of logic, than use crafty means of emotional appeal to win his case. In the end, Socrates’ rational arguing was not enough to prove his innocence to the jury. He was found guilty and sentenced to death. As a modern reader, one would think that Socrates clearly proved his innocence and that the law and society of Athens at the time had to have been corrupt. However, the Apology raises an Important question about the present day: is society really that much different now? For instance, in a 2001 interview with Bill O’Reilly, rock star Marilyn Manson was questioned about his effects on the youth of the world. Many parents claim that Manson is a bad influence on their children due to his lyrically explicit songs, religious beliefs, and unusual appearance and attire. However, when asked by O’Reilly what message he was trying to convey through his lyrics, Manson replied, â€Å"I try and take everyone’s ideals, common morals, flip them around, make people look at them differently, question them†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (â€Å"Marilyn Manson. †). Socrates and Manson seem to share quite similar views. Socrates was always questioning people about their morals and beliefs in an attempt to arrive at some sort of ethical truth. Manson seems to have a similar goal in mind. So why then does a good portion of society shun Manson for being a corrupter of the youth while Socrates is now generally praised for doing a very similar thing at his time? It seems that if the concepts outlined in the Apology are applied to the modern day, our society as a whole has not changed all that much. We still feel that a few individuals can corrupt an entire nation of youth, whereas the majority is thought to be on the right track for improving them. If the ideas of Socrates are truly compared to that of a modern day radical thinker such as Manson, it is fairly easy to see how the Athenians found his philosophies so bizarre. Socrates’ unique use of rhetorical appeals in the Apology made for a surprisingly convincing speech. His lack of ethos at the beginning of the speech along with his complete absence of pathos made for an unusual form of dialect in terms of the conventions of rhetoric. However, Socrates’ extensive use of logos and his distinct method of questioning forced his audience to think logically about the accusations made against him and the legitimacy of those accusations. The fact that the Athenian jury found Socrates guilty brings into question the political and social issues Athens faced at the time, but also raises questions about whether modern society is any different. Socrates’ ideas still echo throughout today’s world and his use of logical arguments will undoubtedly be imitated and refined for many years to come.