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.
