You’re welcome to respond to anything in “The Apology” that interested you, but here are some prompts to get you started thinking:
- Why do you think Socrates fears being called “eloquent”? Why does he insist he’s not eloquent, when he really seems to be?
- What is Socrates accused of and how does he defend himself? Do you find his arguments persuasive? Why or why not?
- How does Socrates define wisdom? Do you agree with this definition or not?
- Who or what does Socrates seem to believe is the highest moral authority governing us?
- Discuss Socrates’ views about death and dishonor. Is one preferable? Why? Do you agree?
When Socrates makes his case for his unsurpassed wisdom, he states, “I neither know nor think that I know.” In simpler terms, Socrates defines wisdom as realizing and acknowledging that you know nothing. This is a very interesting definition that many people do not consider, as is shown by Socrates’ interactions with the poets, politicians, and artisans, among other groups. However, I agree with this definition of wisdom and have followed this definition throughout my life. To be a truly wise person, one must know that despite all the knowledge they have acquired, in the grand scheme of things, they know nothing. By realizing this, one can be humble about their own knowledge, be flexible to being corrected, and therefore be able to learn many new things. This humble flexibility is the mark of any truly wise person, for they realize that they, like Socrates, neither know nor think that they know.
Socrates is being charged with impiety which means he doesn’t believe in the gods of Athens and he is giving false teachings against them. He was asking people questions about their beliefs in the gods and when doing that he was breaking down the idea that the people who claim to believe in the gods actually don’t know what they believe. He also was being charged because he was teaching the youth the same thing, to ask questions when things don’t make sense and to challenge authority if something doesn’t sound right. I personally do not believe he had the best argument for his case because he became very repetitive and never gave a clear answer on why he wasn’t guilty. In doing this though, I think he was showing the people persecuting him that they don’t even understand why he was in the wrong in the first place because he was shining a light on things that didn’t make sense to him and to others. That’s why he took so much time explaining the situation of what happened, because it would work in his defense.
At the core of Socrates’ views regarding knowledge, is simply put, that he knows that he knows nothing. Meaning that he possesses such a degree of self-awareness, he can recognize his own ignorance and lack of understanding, unlike many people who think they know everything. This puts him apart from everyone else in regards to knowledge. He engages in debate not to prove his point (because he does not have one), but to point out logical flaws in others’ ideas. Personally, I have very mixed feelings regarding this style of knowledge. I do commend his efforts to showcase the ignorance in other people’s arguments, but at the same time, I believe that he does not really stand for anything in particular. Since I believe that offering a solution to an issue or expressing your ideas is equally as important as disproving others, I have a hard time respecting Socrates’.
I also commend Socrates for his degree of self-awareness, but his message is muddled by his repetitiveness and vague ideas. Eloquent speech is only a mere part of the argument, and as you mentioned, I also agree that Socrates’ message was hard to understand without a concrete solution to the issue and the fact that the majority of his argument was spent disproving others. Despite the polarity between the text and modern-day pieces, I was able to recognize some symbolic messages. Socrates states that men care about the greatest amount of money, rather than wisdom, truth, and the greatest improvement of the soul. This sentence was the most symbolic to me because it refers to society’s infatuation with materialistic goods and status, then one’s true identity and virtue.
The way that Socrates talked about wisdom and the idea of wisdom was really interesting to me. Individuals who possess great wisdom are usually very humble and do not flaunt their wisdom, but Socrates went a different route. He claims that no one on Earth truly has wisdom and only God has wisdom, but he believes himself to be better than others because he acknowledges that he is not wise. He appears to think that his mission is to expose fake wisdom that individuals claim to have. The concept of wisdom has always been very interesting to me because it is not something that you can test or measure, it is just something that you either have or you do not have. I agree with Socrates, on a certain level, that no one on Earth is truly and completely full of wisdom, but I do believe that some individuals develop a sense of wisdom as they grow older and go through more experiences in life.
In his discussion of death, Socrates proposes that there are two possibilities. He suggests that death is either a “state of nothingness” or a migration of the soul. Either of these possibilities he considers to be positive, for the first would lead to a peaceful existence and the second would allow him to continue his work of discovering false wisdom as well as converse with and challenge the great thinkers who have preceded him. Dishonor, on the other hand, is a pain and unpleasantness that must be endured constantly. Therefore, Socrates argues that death is preferable to dishonor. Following this logic, he declares that if he is sentenced to death, his fate is greater than that of his accusers and the judges. I agree with the idea that death is preferable to dishonor, especially if we are operating under the assumption that one cannot reestablish their honor. While no one can say with certainty what occurs after death, to live in a society in which no one respects you and you have lost the regard of everyone in your community would be remarkably unpleasant. I find this especially true in Socrates’ situation because given the time period and his outspokenness, he does not have the option to move elsewhere and start anew.
Socrates is brought forth to the jury due to the claims of Meletus (and others) that he is corrupting the youth and not adhering to the accepted religious beliefs of the state. He defends himself by addressing both old and new accusations against him, opting to explain the origin of them and why they are thus false. He recounts the story of the oracle and his search to expose well-known, self-proclaimed wise men as ignorant fools, which has given many a reason to dislike him. When he brings Meletus forward for the cross-examination, he uses the chance to point out inconsistencies in the accusations through metaphorical comparisons. His arguments were persuasive in that they exposed the many contradictions in the reasoning behind his indictment, but did little to actually defend himself. He was more interested in pointing out the flaws in the opposition rather than cleansing himself entirely of the accusations. He did little to appeal to those that disproved of him prior to the indictment. The cross-examination being used as a tool to embarrass Meletus is a prime example of his approach failing to be entirely persuasive.
Socrates evidently believes that death should not be feared, and that those who do in fact fear it are fools. He states that death could be wonderful and that it shouldn’t be seen as an absolute evil or the greatest enemy to life itself. Furthermore, he believes that one would be better off concerned living in the right and virtuously rather than concerned with the possibility of dying. Honor and righteousness are everything to Socrates, and is convinced that this should be the priority of life rather than living, since disgrace and dishonor are worse than death. This is the reason why he goes to his death willingly rather than begging to be acquitted. Personally, I feel as if Socrates speaks truthfully, as I would be much more content living within the right in my actions even if it meant that my life may be shorter. However, I think that it is pretty easy to say this rather than actually commit to it, especially when sayings such as “you only live once” and “life’s too short” exist. In the end though, I think it’s more preferable to live without fear of death since it’s inevitable, and try to live your own life as best and as righteously as you can.
Socrates poses several intellectually-stimulating questions throughout this narrative. Initially, I was surprised by his colloquialism for the daunting setting he was in. As I read, this only made me realize his valiance when speaking in front of the jury, which exemplified propriety during the time. However, Socrates’ views most certainly contradict what I hold necessary. He stressed that his genuine voice prevents him from taking part in public affairs and thus leads him to speak his own truth within a very private lifestyle. Furthermore, he mentions that because he refuses to acknowledge himself as wise like the jury members, he rises above everyone and is therefore content with how he verbally conveys his ideas. I find that in order for one to hold themselves accountable and push society forward, it is crucial to address your own flaws and unionize those with similar flaws. It is only when this occurs that social progress truly materializes.
In the apology at his trial for crimes against the state, Socrates discusses his perspective on both death and dishonor. Socrates takes a rational position towards death. He plainly asserts that “to fear death, men, is in fact nothing other than to seem to be wise, but not to be so.” He continues to say that death is an unknown event and that it is foolish for people to fear death as though it is “the greatest of all evils” although it very well may be the opposite. In regards to dishonor, Socrates argues that he knows that it is ignoble to be unjust and not honor one’s conscience. Therefore, death, of which no one knows if the outcome is good or bad, is preferable to dishonor, which is certainly reprehensible. I agree with Socrates’ views on death and dishonor and the relationship both subjects have with fear. I believe the fear of death can be seen throughout prominent religious teachings that emphasize the horror that may come after death. It is understandable why some may find dishonor to be preferable over death because they fear the unknown. However, though religions have certain beliefs on the afterlife, humans have no proof of evil or pleasure and I believe it is something people should not obsess over when it is not our mortal right to know during life.
According to Plato’s summarization of Socrates’ defense, Socrates’ opinions about death and dishonor become clear after he receives the guilty verdict and his sentence to death. Instead of rejecting the sentence, Socrates accepts his punishment with steadfastness, viewing death as a trivial matter as opposed to living his life in dishonor and counter to his personal beliefs about a virtuous, non-secular life. He emphasizes these ideals when he berates the jury members and accusers that sentenced him to death, saying that they let a worse fate than death—wickedness—take hold of their lives. Personally, I believe that Socrates’ way of living is more honorable and fulfilling. Being able to express your personal beliefs without the fear of exclusion or punishment requires a strong belief in one’s self, while those conforming to beliefs that they do not prescribe to have to live a “false” life. While I would probably cower down if I had to choose my ideals or my life, Socrates’ ideas about death and dishonor are admirable.
Straight from the start of Plato’s defense of himself it is clear that whatever was highly offensive to him. The first term he chose for his fixation, being eloquence, in modern meanings would be a compliment as it is a word signifying a manner of speaking which is highly influential. In the context of this court, however, eloquence takes a meaning more similar to that of deception and demandingness. In essence Plato’s accusers claim that his manner of speech is one woven with distruth and deceit. Plato in his rebuttal chooses to speak directly to the men of Athens, those who had likely come to hear him speak before. He is attempting to combat this deceitful narrative that his accusers are placing on his head, asserting that his speech is the opposite of their claims being nothing but truth. He fires back at his accusers saying, “Well, as I was saying, they have hardly uttered a word, or not more than a word, of truth; but you shall hear from me the whole truth: not, however, delivered after their manner, in a set orientation duly ornamented with words and phrases”(19). Plato begins in this statement by plainly asserting that his accusers have told not a word of truth in their entire defense against him. He goes even further by claiming that he will speak with the whole truth delivered plainly. To end this claim against his accusers Plato states that he will speak unprompted from his mind the truth, whereas his accusers used a premeditated script to slander him. This doubles down on his claim that they are in fact the distrustful ones, as a prewritten script grants plenty of time to craft intricate lies to be used as opposed to a man being placed on the spot having little time to make up lies that are believable.
Socrates believes true wisdom comes from God. However, because he doesn’t show off his wisdom and knowledge means that he is even more wise. He believes that people who flaunt their wisdom don’t truly have wisdom as in order to have true wisdom you have to admit that you don’t know everything. I do for the most part believe in his definition, however I don’t believe that it is as black or white as being humble about being wise or not. I think a wise person can be someone who has life experience or someone who has knowledge or a bit of both. Socrates is an older man which means that he has a lot of life experience and I think that he is wiser than most people, but that doesn’t mean he is the wisest just because he is humble in his knowledge of not knowing everything. Although it is kind of hypocritical of him to decide who has wisdom and who doesn’t. I don’t believe that it is for him to decide but to focus on his own journey instead of focusing on everyone else’s.
Socrates’ accusers make note for the people to not to be persuaded by Socrates’ “eloquence”, meaning his way of words, almost like he is extremely good at convincing you of something. However, Socrates takes offence to this because he is not trying to convince the people of a radical evil, he feels he is portraying the truth with his words. I think he fears being called this because it paints him as a man with false ideas who has identity because of his way with words. Socrates believes having “eloquence” (at least in the manner the accusers are describing) means to be not telling the truth in some aspect. Without a doubt, Socrates believes that he is telling the truth. He even lets the accusers know they should feel shameful of calling him this after he begins talking and using his eloquence. With all that being said, Socrates’ “eloquence” did not work out well for him because despite his efforts, he was still sentenced to death.
“The Apology” follows Socrates’ speech defending himself in his trial. Towards the end of Plato’s “The Apology”, Socrates’ views on death and dishonor were made evident. Although his speech was not enough to save his life and resulted in him being sentenced to death, Socrates accepted his fate. He said it would be foolish to be scared of death, and he would rather face death over dishonor, especially since he claimed he did nothing wrong. He viewed death with an open mind, saying that since no one knows what happens after death, it does not make sense to be afraid of it. The main part of his defense was telling the truth, not intentionally saying things that could save his life in his trial. He presented a defense he stood behind; one that clearly represented his ideas and thoughts, knowing that it was likely to be unsuccessful. I have a difficult time deciding if I would rather face death or dishonor. Facing dishonor means I still get to live, and it would be difficult for me to pick death when I could do something to prevent it. In some cases though, death would be preferable to living a miserable life of dishonor. Even though he says it would be foolish to be scared of death, I don’t think I would ever be able to think in that way.
Socrates is accused of a few different things. It seems he is accused of being a bad influence on youths in the city of Athens. It seems that Meletus has accused Socrates of corrupting the youth in making them think there are no gods. Socrates is also accused of making the worse, the stronger argument. I interpreted this to mean that Socrates is accused of teaching children the wrong things and sounding persuasive even when his argument is wrong or worse than another. Socrates defends himself in a very smart way. He questions Meletus and gets Meletus to admit he does not think Socrates believes in the gods. Socrates asks Meletus a series of questions, in which Meletus admits Socrates does believe in spirits. Socrates then provides that one who believes in spirits, must believe in gods because spirits are gods or the sons of gods. This is a very smart argument by Socrates. He was able to question Meletus into making him contradict himself and in result, destroy his own argument. I found Socrates’ argument to be sufficiently persuasive and intelligent.
The bravery of Socrates to call out his accusers is what first interests me when reading The Apology. He states that he will first start with the older accusations and then go down the list to the new accusations. Socrates is accused of not believing in the gods that the state believes in and attempts to defend himself. However, while he is defending himself, he is not apologizing which goes against the title “The Apology”. When Soctartes talks about wisdom he says that wisdom is attainable by men which is the reason for him being wise, but if it is supernatural wisdom then he is not wise. Socrates then proceeds to interrogate Meletus. After the interrogation he confidently states that if they do kill him that they will never find one like him which is pretty arrogant and egotistical to me. Surprisingly, when it was time to count the votes there was a larger number for him versus being against him. In the end, Socrates is found guilty and sentenced to death.
When someone is eloquent, it means they have a way with words and can persuade or clearly state something. I think in this case, Socrates fears being called “eloquent” because it would mean that he is just good at telling people what they want to hear. This would indicate that he is not being truthful and does not know what he is talking about, because of his ability to express himself in a way that makes it seem like he does. Even though Socrates must show some type of eloquence in order to defend himself in the court, he might think that being called eloquent takes away from his goal of trying to state the facts to the court and judge. Socrates insists that he is not eloquent because it might lead the court and judge to believe that he is guilty of the charges against him.
I think Socrates defines wisdom in a much different way than how wisdom is traditionally defined. Socrates defines wisdom as almost something like a divine power, the ability to know all. For example, by Socrates’ definition of the word, a wise person would be able to answer any question and give a meaningful explanation. I think that Socrates believes that you either have wisdom or you don’t. The oracle Delphi told Socrates that there was no man wiser than himself. I believe that what the oracle meant by this is that humans have no wisdom whatsoever. Thus, no man is wiser than Socrates, and Socrates is also wiser than no other man. While I agree that no has the wisdom that Socrates describes, I think I would use a different word for it. I would define wisdom as the accumulation of knowledge and experiences throughout a person’s life. I would instead use a word like omniscient for what Socrates is describing.
What was interesting to me about this passage was the connection between Socrates’ view on death and wisdom, since there was a clear connection at the termination of his speech. Towards the end of this passage, Socrates accepts his fate to be executed and discusses how he wouldn’t be afraid of death since only the gods know what happens after death, and he shouldnt fear what he doesn’t know. This made me think about his earlier discussion of wisdom and how those who are truly the most wise in the world are those who admit that they don’t know and reject the material aspects of life. Using this knowledge and the oracle’s prophecy, Socrates accepts his status of one of the wisest men alive; but this all leaves me (and other readers) uneasy. The way I understood it, Socrates really didn’t display his own knowledge but rather tried to disprove others. This happened especially to Meletus whom he almost tried to embarrass rather than truly argue against, and that makes him come across ironically less full of wisdom than he claims.
How does Socrates define wisdom? Do you agree with this definition or not?
Socrates defines wisdom as being aware of his ignorance. Developing the ability to be self-aware has lifelong benefits. It allows self reflection which leads to growth and the bettering of one’s self. His understanding of his wisdom is what leads to his accusation regarding death, which explains why he does not beg for a lesser punishment. Socrates does not speak on what he does not know, which is why he forms his opinion of death around the unknown. No one can claim what the after life is like because it is merely beyond one’s own intellectual limitations. I work everyday towards being consciously aware of how I interact with the environment around me. Being in touch with one’s inner self opens opportunities to grow within one’s self and within relationships with others. Self-reflection is very challenging and there will always be room to improve and access one’s ignorance. Having the connection between the mind and the body will aid in making wise decisions because one then can truly measure how valuable and what effects a decision can have on one’s life.
Socrates defines wisdom as the ability to acknowledge that you know less than you think you do. I thought that this was such a refreshing concept because we always read these pieces written by these men that think their word is the undeniable truth. What Socrates discusses however, is that the smartest person in the room is the one that accepts the fact they do not know everything. I definitely agree with his definiton of wisdom because I have learned that people in my life who have the attitude that they know more than everyone else, are often the ones that get proved wrong. I also thought it was interesting how towards the end when Socrates is sentenced to death, he states that only the gods know what happens in the afterlife, so there is no use in being scared of the unknown. Even as he about to face death, he still is humored by the fact that wisdom is about accepting what you do not know, and therefore he is alright with dying.
Socrates fears being eloquent because he doesn’t want to his message to be hidden by his well-put or persuasive words. He was accused of being a “clever” speaker, meaning his eloquence would allow him to woo the audience. He claimed this cleverness to mean he was actually speaking of the truth. He wants the people of Athens to know that what he is saying is true, which quickly becomes apparent after his use of repetition. I think the saying “the truth will set you free” can be spun to be fit Socrates feelings towards wisdom. Socrates believes he is the most wise because he isn’t ignorant to the fact that he doesn’t know everything. That is a truth that everyone can relate to and everyone should understand because knowing everything will close you off to the opportunity to gain more knowledge. Therefore, the truth that you do not know everything will set you free from ignorance.
Socrates is accused of being a “doer of evil, and corruptor of the youth, and he does not believe in the gods of the state.” In the recollection of this trial, Socrates’ main defense tactic is to make a fool of Meletus and other accusers. He uses a lot of sarcasm and wit in order to get a rise from whatever onlookers are by. I feel that this is a good tactic in defense, however the point that he is drawing comes across very unclear and I feel that is due to the delivery of what is being said. The idea of eloquence being what Socrates fears to be understood as, is almost comical because of the persuasive manner in which he delivers his defense. That may just be my interpretation of it but I feel that he hinders his defense by using the tactic of rhetorical question and involvement of Meletus because it further depicts his ease with manipulating language and word. Even if it is for his benefit and it is working in his favor, his language and delivery has a very patronizing tone. He draws the claim that he is wise because he acknowledges his ignorance. That is a persuasive and relevant defense regardless of tactic.
In “The Apology,” Plato is afraid to be called ‘eloquent’ for a few reasons. When his accusers use the term, they imply that he speaks as if he is intentionally trying to fool his listeners. At this time in history, most of the population was uneducated, and scholars that spoke as Plato could be disliked because of it. However, it was mostly state officials that Plato had made angry. Not because he was actually speaking this way, but rather because he had proved them wrong. Overall, I believe Plato didn’t want to be called eloquent, because at the time it implied that he had directly mislead and fooled his students and fellow man.
Socrates takes a rather interesting approach to death. When he is bestowed with a guilty verdict indicating that he would be put to death, he did not have much emotion. Socrates was stoic in the fact that no one knew what happened after death therefore there he did not know what to fear if he died. As for dishonesty he states that the accusers have harmed themselves more than they are harming Socrates. Socrates makes many wise points in the apology having to do with death, virtue, and dishonesty that still hold true today. Meletus accuses Socrates of being an atheist in the trial, which was one of the first false accusation on Socrates’ name. Socrates however does believe in God. I support Socrates’ claim that we should not fear death. I do not fear death because I am a Christian and I believe that believers will go to heaven. However I do not know where Socrates’ loyalty stands.
Plato’s apology is a narration of Socrates’ trial for his crimes. The corruption of youth in Athens, Greece and his strange belief with Gods landed him in question. He defends himself from the jury that accuses him of identifying with natural philosophy, which goes against the ways of tradition and religion. Socrates denies the accusations, saying “I know that I know nothing”. However, his corruption of the youth seemed to be the most cruel. Socrates rejected the idea that he alone could shape the youth, reasoning that bettering people requires great knowledge and skill. He reasoned that if he was the cause, he had not done it on purpose and therefore should not be punished by the court. I found his arguments to be odd for someone in his situation. He would have built a better and more convincing case as to why he is innocent. He could’ve painted Meletus and Anytus as enemies out to get him. Perhaps he was more focused on telling the truth and getting the jury to believe him than pushing a narrative.
Socrates believes to not be afraid of death for he does not believe in fearing something he nor any man knows anything about. This philosophical literature highlights the definition of wisdom meaning admitting to knowing no knowledge. Socrates explains in his conversations with the townspeople that those who claim to have knowledge are only faking it. Disclosing his sons, Socrates attests that he wishes for them to be punished if they grow up to become men of this nature without virtue and obsessed with the monetary value of life. The serious dishonor of faking wisdom is far greater than death in Socrates’ eyes. During his “apology”, he claims that he does not fear death, however he also acts hypocritical by proposing that he receive a small fine rather than the death penalty. Also, after expressing his detest for money, he says “Had I money I might have proposed to give you what I had, and have been none the worse.” While this sentence is appealing to his side by saying he is poor and has no reason to fake wisdom, he contradicts himself with the offer of monetary value as pay for his philosophical “wrongings.” Although his stance in court may have falso footing and no real evidence, I do agree with Socrates beliefs. I think that faking life or wisdom as he said, is not the same as truly living and death should not be something that is feared for people that have lived an honest life.