Plato’s Apology

By Bedor Alobaidi
My philosophical study over Plato's Apology ( College paper )
Des Moines Area Community College, Spring of 2015

He studies things in the heavens and below the earth. This charge identifies S as a ‘natural philosopher’. Early societies are called archaic or originary societies – in these societies’ people make sense of the world and themselves in terms of the gods and by telling stories about the gods. In this case, the gods are the powers who fashion and rule the world. Some scholars refer to these societies as “mythopoeic.”

Hesiod’s Theology is an example of this sort of account in Greece. Homer’s the Iliad and Odyssey are also examples of this sort of narrative. However, beginning around 585BC, various Greek philosophers attempted to make sense of the world in terms of various elements and ‘mechanical’ principles. For example, Anaximenes thought that all things were made of air through expansion and condensation.

Later, Democritus thought that all things were made from tiny particles of matter (atoms). Philosophy, thus, was perceived as arising in opposition to traditional religious beliefs.

2) He makes the worse argument into the stronger (better) argument.

This argument identified Socrates with the Sophists. The Sophists were a group of orators who had discovered techniques of persuasion that allowed them to get a group of people to adopt the point of view of the sophists even though the Sophists might be ignorant of the subject matter about which they were speaking. These individuals went from city to city and in particular trained young men who wanted to gain political power. The Sophists were very distrusted by many in Athens.

3) Socrates is guilty of corrupting the young

This charge is a consequence of the other charges.

4) Socrates does not believe in the gods of the city.

This charge largely follows from the first charge. Early societies were theocracies since political power derived from the gods and in many cases political leaders might regard themselves as divine (as did various Roman emperors) or as able to trace their ancestry back to the gods (as did the Greek aristocracy). Ancient people did not usually care what gods people believed in so long as they gave due honor to the gods of the city in which they lived. Not to do so amounted to a kind of treason since it undercut the authority and legitimacy of a particular regime. By being accused of being a natural philosopher, Socrates was also accused of not believing in the gods of the city as was Anaxagoras a generation earlier. He regarded the sun as a hot rock, thus implicitly denying that it was Apollo and thus, implicitly denying the legitimacy of those who claimed to ruleGreek cities because they could trace their ancestry back to Apollo. As mentioned in class, the early Christians were persecuted by the Romans in part because they refused to make any acknowledgement of the emperor as divine.

In Plato’s Apology, Socrates, after his opening remarks, tells the jury that not only will he reply to the charges on which he has been brought before the court, but must also speak to the prejudices about him which have been accumulating “for a long time now”. He treats that “slander” he calls it as if it were a legally filed charge, as if it constituted an official accusation. In fact, he claims that the most important and most difficult part of his defense will be making a persuasive response to those long-standing prejudices. He specifies the informal ‘charges’ at three different places in the text. At 18bc he says these accusations are that “there is a certain Socrates, a wise man, who thinks about what’s in the heavens and who has investigated all things below the earth and who makes the weaker argument appear to be the stronger.” He immediately adds that people “believe that those who inquire about such topics don’t believe in the gods.” That is, atheism is thought by the Athenian public to be a consequence of the activities of which he has been ‘accused’. The details of the slander are restated by way of reminder at 19bc in an immediate preliminary to his detailed defense: “Socrates does wrong and is too concerned with inquiring about what’s in the heavens and below the earth and to make the weaker argument appear to be the stronger and to teach these same things to others.”

The two versions differ in several ways, two of those differences are major. Missing from the restatement 19bc is the reference to atheism; and added on this second detailing of the prejudices is a charge concerning teaching.

 
Finally, at Socrates says that these slanders have come about because, when the (rich) youth of Athens emulate him in questioning those around town, he is blamed for teaching them. However, because those who are offended by such youthful questioning know nothing about Socrates himself and his activities, in their ignorance they impute to him standard charges against those who pursue philosophy: “about ‘what’s in the heavens and below the earth’ or ‘doesn’t believe in gods’ and ‘makes the weaker argument the stronger’. Again the list of cited offenses varies some from the two earlier versions.

 Here the charge of being a physicist is again clearly laid out; the atheism charge is explicitly included in the list; the teaching charge is absent, though it must be recognized that it forms the context in which these other items are cited; and for the third time the charge of making the weaker argument the stronger is stated.

 Since Socrates goes to the trouble of setting out the prejudices against him as if they were included in the indictment, we should reasonably expect that, since he sees fit to defend himself against and to seek exoneration from the official charges, he will also attempt the self-proclaimed difficult task of making adequate reply to the powerful though unofficial ones.

He reminds those who have accused him that he is virtuous.

Now, the prosecution contended that Socrates was corrupting the youth by teaching that the Greek gods were not really gods but more like ancestors. Of course in the Apology Socrates refuted this. Socrates never once told people how they should believe. His only purpose was to show, by reflecting from within, that there is a Universal Idea, that is formless and unchangeable that is within everything that exists. He never spoke an unkind word to anyone. He was guided by an inner Spirit of which he was told from the oracle of Delphi that he was the wisest person in the than known world. He did not believe it, of course, and he made it his lifelong ambition to prove the oracle wrong. He admitted to his ignorance and set about to find true wisdom. Unfortunately, by doing this, he was at odds with almost everyone he came in contact. Most people were sure of what they knew and Socrates made them feel uneasy. Because, unlike most people, Socrates was mystified by what people thought they knew but in actuality they knew nothing or very little. This did not set to well with the young man Anytus.He brought a petition against Socrates that ended up with his death. He never condemns anyone for what they did. He gladly took the hemlock that was offered to him and he died peacefully, Michael.

Socrates believed in a higher power and gods (pleural), especially Apollo who's oracle was at Delphi and whose particular oracle [via a Pythian priestess's answer to his friend's question] began him on his philosophical investigation (to prove the god irrefutable) to find even one person who was wiser than himself. The god was irrefutable since Socrates never found that one wiser person to refute Apollo's oracle [No man is wiser than Socrates.]

 

SOCRATES:- Therefore you must not expect me, gentlemen, to behave toward you in a way which I consider neither reputable, nor moral, nor consistent with MY RELIGIOUS DUTY, and above all you must not expect it, when I stand charged with IMPIETY (being "irreligious") by Meletus here. Surely it is obvious that if I tried to persuade you and prevail upon you by my entreaties to GO AGAINST YOUR SOLEMN OATH, I should be teaching you contempt for religion, and by my very defense I should be accusing myself of having no religious belief. But THAT IS VERY FAR FROM THE TRUTH. I have more sincere belief than any of my accusers and I leave it to you and TO GOD to judge me, as it shall be best for me and for yourselves. [Apology 35c to 35d]  

Now, Socrates described himself as gadfly. It was actually Plato who referred to Socrates and his life as a gadfly because Socrates continued to question and doubt the wise men of the time, and thus all accepted notion, challenging that things, standing where they had been for centuries, had to be reexamined and re-evaluated. For example, he challenged the notion that "might makes right," a popular belief in Greece at the time. He was often one who challenged the status quo, and ruffled feathers, but as Plato stated in his Apology, "as the gadfly stings the horse into action, so Socrates stung various Athenians, insofar as he irritated some people with considerations of justice and the pursuit of goodness."

Indeed, his attempts to improve the Athenians' sense of justice may have been the source of his execution.

SOCRATES' ARGUMENTS

 

 

In response to Crito's arguments Socrates considers first, why the opinion of the majority is not the most important opinion, second, what the consequences of escaping would be for the city of Athens, and third whether escaping is an unjust action such that it would harm Socrates' soul.

Many of Crito's arguments concern the opinion of the majority--what will they think if Crito does not help Socrates escape? What will they think if Socrates is not responsible for his children? Socrates argues that the opinion of an expert is more important than the opinion of the majority. He gives the example of someone in training. Such a person does not pay attention to the advice of the general public, but to his trainer. If he listened to public opinion (take steroids, eat whatever you want, train 20 hours a day), he could hurt his body. Socrates extends the analogy to deciding on what the right way is to act. If we listen to the majority rather than experts we could harm our souls, the part of us that is mutilated by wrong actions and benefited by right ones(Crito, 47a-48a).

Socrates does concede that as a majority, the general public has the power to put people to death, but he states that the most important thing is not living, but living a good life, so that it is not worth following the opinion of the majority if it means sacrificing something that is important for living a good life.(48b)

The above is one of Socrates' most fundamental principles - that the really important thing is not to live but to live well. Therefore he considers whether it is morally right to pay off the guards and escape. Socrates begins addressing this issue by considering the consequences for the city of Athens. He says that the laws and the city could be destroyed if he escaped. Legal judgments could lose their force if they were nullified by private citizens, and a city without laws would not remain intact for very long.

In addition to harming the city, Socrates thought he would be harming the condition of his soul by escaping. First he thought his soul would be harmed because he assumed that by harming the city he would be also harming his soul. Being responsible for harm to others is something that causes harm to one's soul. He also would have suffered harm to his soul because he broke an agreement. He made a tacit agreement to follow the laws of Athens because he lived under them for seventy years, raised his children under them, and did not try to persuade the city to change them.

In order to evaluate Socrates' arguments, below I will put them in argument form, and then, I will assess the premises.

A) Living Well Argument

1. To do an unjust action ruins one's soul

2. Life is not worth living with a ruined soul

Conclusion: The most important thing is not life but living a moral and just life.

B) Consequences for Athens Argument

1. If I escape from jail, then the laws of Athens and thus the city of Athens will be destroyed.

2. To destroy the laws of Athens and the city of Athens harms the citizens of Athens.

3. To harm others is to harm my soul because to harm others is unjust, and doing unjust actions harms my soul.

4. It is better to die than to live with a ruined soul.

Conclusion: Therefore, I should stay in jail and accept the death penalty

C) Agreement Argument

1. If I escape, then I will break an agreement I made with the city.

2. To break an agreement is an unjust action

3. Doing unjust actions harms the soul.

4. It is better to die than to live with a ruined soul.

Conclusion: Therefore, I should stay in jail and accept the death penalty Arguments B and C both depend on argument A. First, I'll consider the general structure of B and C, and then I'll evaluate argument A which they rely on. Argument B appears to be valid. If the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. The question is, are the premises true? Premise 2 appears to be true. We will discuss premises 3 and 4 when considering argument A. That leaves us with premise 1. Premise 1 predicts the consequences of Socrates' actions. A problem with making decisions about how to act based on consequences is that we can't always accurately predict the consequences of actions. We don't know for certain what the results of our action will be or who will be affected by them. Perhaps if Socrates escapes, other citizens will not follow Socrates' example of breaking the law and escaping from jail. Maybe the only result will be that the state beefs up security in the jails and hires guards who won't be bribed. In that case Socrates would be benefiting the city by escaping because the result of his action would be a more secure jail.

 

Argument C offers a better argument utilizing the results of A. C also appears to be valid, and premises 1 and 2 are to true. If Socrates escapes he will break his agreement to obey the laws. He gives several examples of how he agreed to obey the laws by remaining in Athens and not challenging the laws. It also true that breaking the agreement would be an unjust action. He does not have the permission of the city to break the agreement, and to terminate the agreement otherwise would be unjust.

 

Argument A talks about the soul, and it is a controversial issue about whether we have a soul. If we replace the idea of soul with the idea of character, the argument seems to work. Doing unjust actions ruins your character, it ruins who you are. Life is valuable when it is a flourishing, growing, moral life, but life with a corrupted character is of little or no value. Life without self-esteem isn't worth living.

In conclusion Crito's arguments are very narrow. The one strong argument he gives about children is effectively refuted by Socrates. Socrates' consequential argument is not necessarily compelling, but if we accept his primary argument about only lives that are lived well having value, then his second argument concerning his agreement with the state to follow its laws is a compelling one, therefore Socrates was right to decide to remain in jail.”

Reference to this section http://www2.gsu.edu/~phltso/sample-paper.html

After youthful study of the new theories of cosmology, Socrates realized that his unique vocation was to bring philosophy down to earth by applying logic to the problems and challenges of living. He devoted his life to dialoguing with his neighbors, usually in the agora, the vast outdoor marketplace at the foot of the Acropolis in Athens (on top of which stood the Parthenon, which his father had worked on). http://socratesway.com/history.html

The Socratic Method

 

Socratic Method, also known as method of elenchus, elenctic method, or Socratic debate, is named after the classical Greek philosopher Socrates. It is a form of inquiry and discussion between individuals, based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to illuminate ideas. It is a dialectical method, often involving a discussion in which the defense of one point of view is questioned; one participant may lead another to contradict themself in some way, thus strengthening the inquirer's own point.

The Socratic method is a method of hypothesis elimination, in that better hypotheses are found by steadily identifying and eliminating those that lead to contradictions. The Socratic method searches for general, commonly held truths that shape opinion, and scrutinizes them to determine their consistency with other beliefs. The basic form is a series of questions formulated as tests of logic and fact intended to help a person or group discover their beliefs about some topic, exploring the definitions or logoi (singular logos), seeking to characterize the general characteristics shared by various particular instances. The extent to which this method is employed to bring out definitions implicit in the interlocutors' beliefs, or to help them further their understanding, is called the Maieutic (Midwife) Method. Aristotle attributed to Socrates the discovery of the method of definition and induction, which he regarded as the essence of the scientific method.

In the second half of the 5th century BC, sophists were teachers who specialized in using the tools of philosophy and rhetoric to entertain or impress or persuade an audience to accept the speaker's point of view. Socrates promoted an alternative method of teaching which came to be called the Socratic method.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method

Socrates began to engage in such discussions with his fellow Athenians after his friend from youth, Chaerephon, visited the Oracle of Delphi, which confirmed that no man in Greece was wiser than Socrates. Socrates saw this as a paradox, and began using the Socratic method to answer his conundrum. Diogenes Laërtius, however, wrote that Protagoras invented the “Socratic” method.[1][2]

Plato famously formalized the Socratic electric style in prose—presenting Socrates as the curious questioner of some prominent Athenian interlocutor—in some of his early dialogues, such as Euthyphro and Ion, and the method is most commonly found within the so-called "Socratic dialogues", which generally portray Socrates engaging in the method and questioning his fellow citizens about moral and epistemological issues. But in his later dialogues, such as Theaetetus or Sophist Plato had a different method to philosophical discussions, namely Dialectic.

The phrase Socratic questioning is used to describe a kind of questioning in which an original question is responded to as though it were an answer. This in turn forces the first questioner to reformulate a new question in light of the progress of the discourse.