This paper examines Plato's Apology, a dialogue recounting Socrates' trial and defense against charges of atheism and corrupting the youth of Athens. The paper discusses Socrates' refusal to apologize to the jury, his argument that divine wisdom justified his teaching methods, and his provocative response when asked to propose his own punishment. The author evaluates the trial's outcome and reflects on whether the death sentence was a just response to Socrates' philosophical practices.
The Apology is a dialogue that records Socrates as a student of Socrates. It is noteworthy that Socrates never wrote about his philosophical views or teachings. Rather, it was his student Plato who documented Socrates' methods and teachings to preserve a picture of his teacher's philosophical approach. The Apology is one of many recorded dialogues about Socrates that Plato preserved for posterity. In this dialogue, Socrates was arrested and charged with two offenses: refusing to recognize the gods acknowledged by the state—what would be called atheism today—and corrupting the youth. At his trial, Socrates presented arguments in his defense to counter these charges and to avoid being sentenced to death.
Notably, Socrates did not attempt to apologize to the panel, which angered the jury further. Instead, when presented with the charges, he attempted to prove his innocence. His defense centered on the claim that divine judgment had destined him to be the wisest man in the world. He stated, "He is a god, and cannot lie; that would be against his nature." Through this argument, Socrates claimed that his mission to question others and pursue wisdom was divinely ordained, not an act of impiety or corruption.
His defense strategy, however, did not resonate with the jury. They grew annoyed by his reasoning and asked him to propose what he believed his punishment should be. Rather than requesting leniency, Socrates responded provocatively. He suggested that Athens should provide him with free meals for the remainder of his life, asserting that he was not less important to the city. He noted that because he was poor—having never charged fees for his teachings—he could not pay any fines. This response was perceived as arrogant and dismissive of the court's authority.
The jury found Socrates' defense and his proposal insulting rather than persuasive. His refusal to show humility or remorse, combined with his bold claim of divine sanction and his suggestion that Athens owed him sustenance, sealed his fate. The jury voted to sentence him to death.
"Author's personal assessment of the trial's outcome"
You’re 70% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.