The righteousness of certain actions and accusations is usually hard to determine; this is exactly the case with Socrates' trial. He is charged for committing a crime of introducing new gods and corrupting the youth, which is apparent to be a large crime in Athens at the time (Plato 2). The unacceptability of this action is portrayed by the audience shouting and interrupting his speech later on in his speech (Plato 36). However, the aspect of the charge that is in question, is whether it was a plausible and correct to accuse him of his crime.
As stated before, the charge that was laid upon Socrates was the lack of worship towards old gods and the introduction of new gods, which corrupted the youth. Socrates' however, does not introduce new gods. In fact, he seems quite knowledgeable and loyal to the gods. He proves his friend wrong in Euthyphro when he states, "[...]might be an action well pleasing to Zeus, but hateful to Cronos, and Uranus, and acceptable to Hephaestus, but hateful to Hera" (Plato 9). This proves that he does worship the old gods, since if he did not, he would not have known that Euthyphro's actions would be pleasing to one, but unpleasant to the other. One must have at least some faith to be able to memorize what each god is affectionate towards. As for corruption of the youth because of the introduction of new gods, it seems like it might be more of a misunderstanding due to Socrates' personality. Shown in many situations, such as the talk with Euthyphro, he refers to well-known people or relatives' names. This might contribute to the names he refers to being the new "gods" which he had been charged for, since not everyone must have known these people he refers to. During Euthyphro, he refers to "Daedalus" (Plato 13). Furthermore, he uses a metaphor that he is being accused of being the Daedalus (Plato 19), which is also a questionable way to put things. It is his weird way of speaking that leads him to his charges.
It is seemingly unrighteous for Socrates to be charged with the evidence that I have provided so far, but it is mostly, if not all, negated because of his speech during the Apology. He has appeared to believe in the gods in all of Euthyphro, as he refers to the gods. However, during his speech in Apology, he does not at any point refer to a specific god's name. He only addresses them as, "the gods" (Plato 29). Throughout the speech though, there is one point where Socrates makes a big mess up. He starts to ignore "the gods" and address "the god", which would make the audience believe that he worshipped not polytheism, but monotheism, which in turn would be a different religion (Plato 28). After his first referral to "the god", he continues with that name, until the end of his speech. Although he may have not intended for it to mislead people, but it was a major mistake on his part.
Socrates does not seem to be a person who would commit the crimes that he was charged for. Despite that fact, his charges were proven legitimate by his speech in Apology. From a spectator's point of view, it would be extremely suspicious for a person not to refer to a god when he is being charged of not believing in them. It further proves that he does not worship them. Even though it is possible that Socrates believed in the gods, making the accusation unjust; one cannot ignore the lack of portrayal of faith during his speech, making the charges indeed legitimate.
Works Cited
Plato. Euthyphro, Apology, Crito. Tran. F.J. Church. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1948. Print.
As stated before, the charge that was laid upon Socrates was the lack of worship towards old gods and the introduction of new gods, which corrupted the youth. Socrates' however, does not introduce new gods. In fact, he seems quite knowledgeable and loyal to the gods. He proves his friend wrong in Euthyphro when he states, "[...]might be an action well pleasing to Zeus, but hateful to Cronos, and Uranus, and acceptable to Hephaestus, but hateful to Hera" (Plato 9). This proves that he does worship the old gods, since if he did not, he would not have known that Euthyphro's actions would be pleasing to one, but unpleasant to the other. One must have at least some faith to be able to memorize what each god is affectionate towards. As for corruption of the youth because of the introduction of new gods, it seems like it might be more of a misunderstanding due to Socrates' personality. Shown in many situations, such as the talk with Euthyphro, he refers to well-known people or relatives' names. This might contribute to the names he refers to being the new "gods" which he had been charged for, since not everyone must have known these people he refers to. During Euthyphro, he refers to "Daedalus" (Plato 13). Furthermore, he uses a metaphor that he is being accused of being the Daedalus (Plato 19), which is also a questionable way to put things. It is his weird way of speaking that leads him to his charges.
It is seemingly unrighteous for Socrates to be charged with the evidence that I have provided so far, but it is mostly, if not all, negated because of his speech during the Apology. He has appeared to believe in the gods in all of Euthyphro, as he refers to the gods. However, during his speech in Apology, he does not at any point refer to a specific god's name. He only addresses them as, "the gods" (Plato 29). Throughout the speech though, there is one point where Socrates makes a big mess up. He starts to ignore "the gods" and address "the god", which would make the audience believe that he worshipped not polytheism, but monotheism, which in turn would be a different religion (Plato 28). After his first referral to "the god", he continues with that name, until the end of his speech. Although he may have not intended for it to mislead people, but it was a major mistake on his part.
Socrates does not seem to be a person who would commit the crimes that he was charged for. Despite that fact, his charges were proven legitimate by his speech in Apology. From a spectator's point of view, it would be extremely suspicious for a person not to refer to a god when he is being charged of not believing in them. It further proves that he does not worship them. Even though it is possible that Socrates believed in the gods, making the accusation unjust; one cannot ignore the lack of portrayal of faith during his speech, making the charges indeed legitimate.
Works Cited
Plato. Euthyphro, Apology, Crito. Tran. F.J. Church. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1948. Print.
Great work, Sherman. This is well argued and well organized. You point out some crucial flaws in the charges raised against Socrates. However, to improve this response, I would try to incorporate a specific discussion of the trial itself as well as the problems inherent in each of the charges. For instance, is the structure of the judicial system legitimate? Also, given what we know about the Socratic method, is it fair to say that Socrates is directly responsible for the corruption of youth?
ReplyDelete