leynes's Reviews > Socrates' Defence

After four years, I finally managed to reread this thing, and I'm glad that I did. It really goes to show that not all of my remaining brain cells have died during this lockdown, especially after having exclusively read old YA trilogies and Batman comics. (Yep, I'm living my best life currently.)

Anyways, Socrates' Defence (or: The Apology of Socrates as it is more commonly known) was written by Plato and is a Socratic dialogue of the speech of legal self-defence which Socrates spoke at his trial for impiety and corruption in 399 BCE. Specifically, it's Socrates' defence against the charges of "corrupting the youth" and "not believing in the gods in whom the city believes, but in other daimonia that are novel" to Athens. Yep, Ancient Greeks were wild, you guys.

Plato was so obsessed with his former mentor that he wrote four Socratic dialogues in which he details the final days Socrates, so among the Apology, there's also the Euthyphro, Phaedo, and Crito. People who are much smarter than me (notably students of Ancient Greek and probably law students as well ... gosh, I imagine law students are having a field day with this one!) will be able to tell you the significance of the other three works, alas! I cannot.

Plato really got deep into it as he wrote from Socrates' perspective. Except for Socrates' two dialogues with Meletus, about the nature and logic of his accusations of impiety, the text of the Apology is in the first-person perspective. Moreover, during the trial, in his speech of self-defence, Socrates twice mentions that Plato is present at the trial, which is kinda funny when you think about the fact that Plato is writing the damn thing.

The Apology begins with Socrates addressing the jury of perhaps 500 Athenian men to ask if they have been persuaded by the Orators Lycon, Anytus, and Meletus, who have accused Socrates of corrupting the young people of the city and impiety against the pantheon of Athens. The first sentence of his speech establishes the theme of the dialogue — that philosophy begins with an admission of ignorance. Socrates really hones in on this fact that the only reason he is wiser than all of the men present is because the wisdom he possesses is that he knows nothing. And whilst you may think: "WOW what a humble guy!", I couldn't help rolling my eyes. Of course, Socrates knew something. Of course, he was a clever dude. Otherwise, he wouldn't have spent all of his time talking to people in the market place — if he didn't think he had something of note to share. So, keep that humility to yourself buddy. We ain't buying it.

Socrates' accusers were: 1) Anytus, a rich and socially prominent Athenian who opposed the Sophists on principle (HONESTLY MOOD), 2) Meletus, a true enemy of Socrates (ALSO MOOD), and 3) Lycon, who represented the professional rhetoricians as an interest group.

In his defence at trial, Socrates faced two sets of accusations: (i) asebeia (impiety) against the pantheon of Athens, by introducing new gods; and (ii) corruption of Athenian youth, by teaching them to doubt the status quo. Socrates says to the court that these old accusations arise from years of gossip and prejudice against him; hence, are matters difficult to address.

For his self-defence regarding the accusations of impiety, Socrates first eliminates any claim that he is a wise man. He says that Chaerephon, reputed to be impetuous, went to the Oracle of Delphi and asked her, the prophetess, Pythia, to tell him of anyone wiser than Socrates. The Pythia answered to Chaerephon that there was no man wiser. Socrates didn't believe the Oracle and so the sought out to find a man wiser than him. Turns out, he didn't. (LMAO) And whilst you may think "WOW that's BIG DICK ENERGY", it actually turns out that each man he interrogated thought himself wise; therefore, Socrates understood that he was the better man because he was aware that he was not wise. Yeah, I talked about that one before. No one buys your humility, dude. Get the fuck outta here.

In regards to the accusation of corruption the Athenian youth (Oscar is quaking in his seat over 2000 years later), Socrates explained that the young, rich men of the city of Athens have little to do with their time. They, therefore, follow him about the city, observing his questioning of intellectual arguments in dialogue with other intellectual men. But since Socrates has never had any complain from them or their parents and friends (he's even like ... ALL THESE PEOPLE I SUPPOSEDLY CORRUPTED ARE HERE TODAY AND IN GREAT HEALTH LOL), he doesn't understand how anyone can truly accuse him of corruption.

Socrates proceeds to say that people who fear death are showing their ignorance, because death might be a good thing, yet people fear it as if it is evil; even though they cannot know whether it is good or evil. And whilst I appreciate that notion, it is also a little bit of bullshit, isn't it? As much as Socrates claims to be above the average man, at the end of the day, neither of us wants to die. And you almost get the feeling that Socrates WANTED TO DIE JUST TO PROVE A POINT. And so, although offered the opportunity to appease the prejudices of the jury, with a minimal concession to the charges of corruption and impiety, Socrates does not yield his integrity to avoid the penalty of death. And so the jury condemns Socrates to death. So I don't know, I know too little about Socrates but as for as I understood it, he was already an old man at the time of the trial (...he was 70 or something) so maybe he really felt like he didn't have as much to loose as maybe a younger person in his position. And we all know that Roman culture is stabbing yourself to prove it a point, so why should it have been different in Athens??

Also, women are mentioned like ... ONCE ... in this entire thing. It's like they don't exist. Maybe a lack of women in your life is also the reason why you ended up on trial in the first place Socrates. Think about it. ;)