Socrates Apology Analyzed

Socrates Apology Analyzed

        Socrates Apology was a defense speech given by Socrates to the court of Athens.  In it Socrates must use his accusers’ affidavits as a basis to both respond to and argue his innocence against many allegations and charges made against him by multiple accusers.  He uses more than one technique to make his points in an excellent effort to convince the court of his innocence and thereby spare his life.   

For example he uses deductive logic to dismiss the allegations of being an atheist.  By pointing out that his actions were actually in pursuit of the Oracle prediction made to him, he reminds the court that the Oracle is indeed a demi-god created by gods.  And thus if he believes in the existence of a demi-god then he must, by default, believe in the gods. A more interesting argument he made is that he knows that he is not well liked by many and even admits he can be very annoying by liking himself to a “gadfly”. But he states that these in themselves are not crimes and that he does so only in the pursuit of truth and wisdom. He also suggests that revenge for this behavior is the primary motive of his accusers.  When he continues on to confront the charge of corrupting the youth he uses another approach.  He suggests that it was not his intent to do so if he did at all.  And that ignorance of doing such an act is not a crime but that only intentional actions are punishable by law. Therefore since his actions were not intended to corrupt the youth he is not guilty of doing so.

        Socrates’ argument against his atheism is compelling and valid.  The accuser contradicts themselves in their own statement and therefore it is not sound.  And a witness against him was made to look foolish when cross-examined by Socrates. This is most definitely not concrete evidence and certainly not enough to take a man’s life.   Confirmation in his belief of the gods exists in his admitted belief and acceptance of the Oracle. 

The idea he put forth in his being disliked by his accusers and that revenge led to the allegations against him is also something to be seriously considered.  Especially when you consider that even the court knows of Socrates verbal skills and indeed warns against being manipulated by his words.  This only solidifies the idea that his wisdom is not only disliked but to be feared.  How can you tell a jury not to allow a person’s defense to persuade them to save his life?   

        When he insists that intent is the basis of guilt; he makes another good point.  It is intent that motivates us to take action and our behavior.  His intentions were motivated by the desire to find truth.  Nothing can be more benevolent or harmless.  As he states “the unexamined life is not worth living.”  It is impossible for anyone to foresee who will be influenced or how they are influenced to react to one’s own actions, behaviors or words.  Socrates then infers that if he had intentionally corrupted the youth he would also being doing himself an injustice by indirectly corrupting himself by means of the company he keeps.  This represents a common idea.  Birds of a feather…, guilty by association, it takes one to know one, etc. So he basically tells the court that any corruption he caused would make him corrupt as well, which is not a charge against him, so neither can be true. 

         As I examined the text and reread key parts to get a better understanding, I found Socrates to have presented himself well.  In fact, his defense was so well stated it is difficult to prove false.  There was almost no real evidence against him save for a few sworn affidavits.  Affidavits he all but proved were suspect.  The atheism charge is certainly disproved by his belief in the Oracle alone.  The fact that Socrates was disliked for his badgering style of questioning is not a crime and that the people who accused him had publicly debated and subsequently humiliated by him make their accusations against him very suspect as well.  So his revenge defense holds water too. 

        If Socrates behavior was really corruptive to the youth then why did no one speak up about it when he challenged anyone in the courtroom to do so?  Whether or not he intended to corrupt is irrelevant if no legitimate proof or testimony can confirm he did at all.  And again I ask how a court can ask the judges or jury not be persuaded by testimony or defense of the accused?  How can they ask to disregard the defendants’ (Socrates) statement and defense?  There’s a man’s life at stake!  While I would agree that someone can unintentionally influence others I cannot accept that one person is responsible for another’s actions or behavior.  We all must accept responsibility for our own actions.  

        The only flaw I found in Socrates defense was his arrogance and closing remarks.  Unless he knew it was a futile attempt to clear his name or he actually wanted to be a martyr I don’t know why he said some things he did except for anger.  It was his courage to stand his ground in the face of death and the conviction in his beliefs that command respect. That said, I don’t think he completely proved his innocence but he definitely cast a doubt as to his guilt.  Without any supporting evidence or testimony I would have accepted his plea/apology, found him not guilty and fined him the amount he proposed.