Plato's Apology

Plato's Apology contains the story around the trial and death of the philosopher Socrates. The work has been studied by many a scholar for its information about the philosopher as well as some of the systems of Greek culture and law at the time. Socrates uses his trial to make several statements about his life, how he lived it, and how he feels about meeting his death. Hence, although Socrates' accusers reach their goal of removing Socrates from society, the philosopher does not see this as defeat.

Instead, he takes pleasure in the fact that he has had a good, long life filled with adventures and connections that brought him satisfaction and joy. In Plato's Apology, one can therefore identify the basic structure of the Athenian legal system at the time, the nature and substance of the accusations against him, and his response to these in terms of relying only on an account of his life to defend himself.

The structure of the Athenian legal system at the time seems to have been made up of the judges, jury, prosecutors and defenders, along with the accusers and the accused. Although witnesses are allowed for both the prosecution and defense, no witnesses are mentioned in any of the apologetic writings. Both prosecutors and defenders would then read prepared speeches before the jury, who would then make final decisions about the guilt or innocence of the accused (Navia, 2007, p. 95).

Within Athens' democratic system, this was considered a fair trial, with the accused having the right to defend himself against his accusers and prosecutors. The accused also has the right to use professional defense lawyers, along with professional orators to compose speeches for him. In the Apology, Socrates makes it clear that there are three accusers who made three accusations against him. The three accusers are Meletus, Anytus and Lycon.

Meletus, on behalf of the poets, Anytus, on behalf of the craftsmen, and Lycon, on behalf of the rhetoricians, accuse Socrates of three main things: Being a "doer of evil," corrupting the youth, and his apparent lack of adherence to the accepted state religion. Socrates uses his power of speech and philosophy to respond to each in turn. To the accusation that he is a corruptor of the youth, Socrates shows the absurdity of Meletus' claim that everybody improves the youth, with Socrates their only corruptor.

Not only does he show this to be impossible in terms of sheer scale, but also demonstrates logically with the example of a horse trainer that he cannot be the sole corruptor of the youth. As for the accusation that he does not adhere to the state religion, Socrates notes several inconsistencies, including the accusation that he is an atheist. Socrates argues that, in believing in spirituality, he must necessarily also believe in gods. Socrates uses both these arguments to show that he is not evil, but good.

At the start of his Apology, Socrates mentions his "old" accusers; during his lifetime of philosophy and public speech, there were those who would level accusations against him from time to time. One of these accusations was that Socrates is an "evil-doer," which is the same accusation that Meletus and the others have against him. It appears that this is a common accusation that was easy for Meletus and his friends simply to take over. Another old accusation is against Socrates' tendency to investigate and study phenomena.

Specifically, the accusers note that Socrates is a "curious person," who looks for information about things that are, it appears, better left unstirred. This accusation does not appear to have a clear equivalent in Meletus' accusation, except if one uses Socrates' religion as one of them. It appears that Socrates has somewhat of a taste for investigating religious alternatives rather than blindly following the state gods. Hence, he investigates things that, according to his accusers are sacred and should not be investigated.

The final parts of the "old" accusations hold that Socrates makes the "worse" appear "better" and teaches this to others. This can be compared to the newer accusation that he corrupts the youth. While the "others" in the older accusation probably include more than just the youth, the accusation has the same core meaning: Socrates is a corruptor of minds by teaching things that he should not teach.

It therefore appears that, although Socrates has made many friends and gained many followers over his lifetime, he has also made a significant amount of enemies, with accusations that have followed him throughout his lifetime. These accusations have then culminated in his prosecutors' accusations, which hold the following: 1. Socrates is a doer of evil; 2. Socrates corrupts the youth; and 3. Socrates is a non-believer in the State religion.

After Socrates took time to demonstrate the inconsistencies in the accusations made against him, Socrates arrives at the major part of his defense, which focuses on his life and his account of how he lived it and the philosophies under which he operated and spoke to his followers.

He begins this by answering the questions of whether he is not ashamed of a life that brought him to the death penalty, or an "untimely end." Socrates replies by an assertion that what he considers to be "good" is not attached to the possibility of living or dying. Instead, the true value of a life should be measured against one's actions during such a life, regardless of its number in years.

This is why Socrates uses an account of his life in his defense rather than merely isolated replies to the accusations made against him. The "old" accusations also provide valuable context not only in terms of Socrates' life and the way in which certain people were angered by his actions and words, but also in terms of the "new" accusations, which are, in many ways, equivalent to the old ones.

Indeed, one might discredit Meletus and his friends merely in terms of the fact that their accusations appear to be updated versions of older accusations. Either way, Socrates is not as concerned with his accusers, their accusations, or defending himself against these as he is with recounting his life as openly and honestly as possible. With this, his aim is not acquittal but rather a legacy of what he recalls as a life he attempted, in all ways, to live as a good man. It is on the strength of.