Apology by Plato and Xenophon - Essay Example

?At the time when Socrates had a trial and then was condemned he was seventy years of age. He was a well known philosopher in Athens often sharing his wisdom with anyone who would listen. Socrates himself did not write anything. Plato, Socrates’ follower had many of his works devoted to his teacher’s speeches, dialogues and teachings. An “Apology” is a speech that Socrates gave during his trial and after being condemned. History knows of two “Apologies”: one is of Plato, and the other one is of Xenophon. Both men were disciples of Socrates, so it is possible that their accounts are bit biased in a way that they would want to defend their teacher. However, their works are written during the years witnesses of this trial were still alive, so it is likely Plato was trying to give a fairly accurate picture of what had happen during the trial. Historians are still puzzled by the reasons Socrates was executed. Athens, the city philosopher lived at the time, enjoyed many liberties, the freedom of speech and democracy, and was favoring wise man and philosophers. Socrates was often outspoken of his critiques on the society and governance of that time. He was often found speaking in the market squares and workshops, where he would discuss moral issues and views that were in odds with his set of values – thus was putting himself in odds with other people. He developed his own set of views which he was following regardless of the circumstances. He dared to refuse follow the orders of bringing a man to a trial, however, he did nothing to change the order – he simply went home. Some of his teachings appeared antidemocratic, e.g. he was speaking against a right of any free citizen to speak in Athenian assembly. He was a famous educator of the young people, however he was doing it free of charge, and he was very poor himself. Being so outspoken, finally he was officially charged with "refusing to do reverence to the gods recognized by the “, and also of corrupting youth. However, the real reasons, most likely, were political – he was very vocal with his critics. In modern times, Socrates’ death has generally been seen in two ways: as the conflict of the individual with the state and as the downfall of rational, talkative man. (Wilson, 2007, p.192) The whole trial and conviction is a sample of ethnocentrism. Society at large, or, better yet, the influential people of Athens, had certain views they were comfortable with and, therefore, considered them being right one. Socrates’ views came into opposition with this mainstream opinion. He was stigmatized, and then punished for being so different. His death had to give Athenians sense of being right, and him – being a criminal and the one, worth of punishment. So his views, measured against the mainstream society’s opinions did not stand the ground. And, as it is often done, those who speak differently are often reprimanded, persecuted and punished. It is not the same as in the case with someone being a real criminal. Even though there is no clear evidence of either Socrates’ guilt or innocence, according to him, he did not do anything that would merit such severe punishment as death. To the contrary, he was trying to serve his fellow citizens to his own hurt. He did not have any gain from his services; to the contrary, he was very poor, which was documented by several historians. He often neglected his family to be of the service to his students. So the outcome of his trial is a clear and extreme example of ethnocentrism. “Silencing dissent in times of conflict results from equating criticism of society with disloyalty”, as Joel M. Charon put wisely in “Ten Questions”. This is exactly what was happening. Socrates’ prosecutors had to have justification for their action – they wanted to rid themselves of the man they could not stand any longer. So they had to fabricate accusations – which Socrates answered in the “Apology”, and refuted as being false and inconsistent. However, it seems that Socrates himself took this trial as a chance to lecture and to instruct his prosecutors. Even though his speech called “Apology”, there is not a word of apology in it. Socrates is pretty defiant during his three hour speech and he also points out his many services to the society, thus presenting himself as a hero and not a criminal. He paints himself as a teacher that leads the youth aright, unlike his prosecutors were proclaiming. It is noteworthy that during his life Socrates taught only privately and was avoiding public speeches, however at the time of his trial he was addressing a crowd of over 500 people. When Socrates was already convicted and was given a chance to argue his penalty, he was provoking jury in a way by saying that instead of the death he should be given a reward for all he did to bring up the morale in Athens. Of course, that was really unlikely to be accepted. So, in reality by doing so he was convicting himself to death. Carrying out his mission as a good man, meant Athenians concluded Socrates was a bad citizen. By bringing his mission into the court, addressing a large audience in a political forum that he had hitherto avoided, Socrates accentuated his conflict with his city. (Colaiaco, 2001, p.150) Another thing he did, that was not customary in the courts at that time, he was not pleading for mercy and he did not bring his family to plead for him before the court. He stated that it was not manly and even degrading to the man to have his children appear before the court. This in itself put him in the opposition with the existing practices and procedures, and clearly states his disapproval of such behavior. The whole trial and a speech, and therefore, the outcome of it, are a kind of suicide, committed by Socrates. Even though he did not take his life himself, he knowingly acted and spoke in a way that would challenge the jury, provoke them and would leave them no choice but condemn him – in doing so, he challenged the whole Athens! Furthermore, he was clearly not sorry for any of his ways. He was saying that if he would be shown mercy on the condition of not speaking openly, he would not be silent. He would continue in his way, which is a way of a “savior” and soul-guard to the Athenians. He speaks of himself as of “a sort of gadfly, given to the state by God” – to be their conscience, to reproach and awaken Athenians from their slumber, to prompt them to live in virtue. Socrates is being very calm and polite in his speech. He addresses his accusers “my friend”, “good man”; however, he is proving very cleverly his contribution to the society, presenting some of his deeds. Socrates is speaking about him being god-appointed for the mission of saving souls of the Athenians, showing them the way of ethical life; and this god given commission he would not put aside even in the face of death. He does not claim him being the wisest in the Athens – like the oracle predicted. Socrates is telling the jury he was on the quest to find a man who would be wise then himself. He is not wise, according to his statement; however he speaks of great people he communicated with, some of them being in the government, people who is considered wise, but having less wisdom than he does. That is a provocation in itself, and an open charge against the rulers. He does not consider himself a teacher like other philosophers during his time, who were teaching young people and making money of it. He speaks of himself as of a man who is merely wonders around answering questions he is asked. He mocks his accusers’ charge of him being the only one who corrupts the young men in the city. Socrates became a first martyr for the freedom of speech, according to I.F. Stone. He goes on to say that the whole account of Socrates’ death is “a black eye for all I believe in, for democracy and free speech”. Plato’s “Apology” is not only a work of literature. It has a valuable historic worth. It is among scarce notes about life in Athens, works and life of Socrates. It might be argued how accurate Plato’s account is; however it does tell us about an outstanding philosopher and his impact of the society. Reference: Charon, Joel M. (2009) Ten Questions: A Sociological Perspective. Cengage Learning Colaiaco, James A. (2001) Socrates against Athens: philosophy on trial Routledge Linder, Doug (2002) The Trial of Socrates Retrieved from http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/socrates/socratesaccount.html Stone I.F., I.F. Stone Breaks the Socrates Story: An old muckraker sheds fresh light on the 2,500-year-old mystery and reveals some Athenian political realities that Plato did his best to hide. Originally published in The New York Times Magazine, April 8, 1979 Wilson, Emily R. The death of Socrates Profiles in history Harvard University Press, 2007 Read More