Analyzing Plato’s Apology

Plato’s Apology was written around 360 B.C. Plato's Apology is a pivotal text dealing with the trial of Socrates because of the details covered about the trial as well as the ultimate fate of Socrates. First, an explanation of the charges against Socrates is explained. Second, the defense Socrates mounts for himself is explored. Third, it is elucidated why Socrates decided to accept his sentence of death rather than permanent exile from Athens. Finally, one of Socrates’ most important quotes, “the unexamined life is not worth living” is analyzed. Despite the weak evidence against Socrates depicted in Apology, Socrates is ultimately found guilty by the court in Athens.

In Plato’s Apology, there are two main charges presented against Socrates. The first, and perhaps most important charge presented was his perceived attack on the gods through inquiring about the world’s function beyond the will of the gods. Socrates explains the argument of his accusers by using their testimony. “Socrates is an evil-doer, and a curious person, who searches into things under the earth and in heaven, and he makes the worse appear the better cause, and he teaches the aforesaid doctrines to others” (Plato 2). The key to this argument is Socrates being accused of, essentially, attributing supernatural causes to natural ones. Natural being “worse” and supernatural being “better.” Since societies during that era were considered by modern terms as archaic, making sense of the natural world was commonly explained through the medium of the gods. Further, Socrates was also accused of being a sophist who spread these ideas through teaching in exchange for money. Socrates’ attempts to make sense of the world outside of the supernatural upset his accusers, and as a result, he was viewed as a threat to the city.

The second charge deals with the perceived corruption of the youth of the town by Socrates. This charge is led by Meletus who Socrates speaks highly of but strongly disagrees with. “They are headed by Meletus…Socrates is a doer of evil, who corrupts the youth…” (Plato 5). The crux of this charge is rooted in the belief by those against Socrates that his teachings inspire the youth to turn on the gods recognized by the Athenians. Socrates questions Meletus during his testimony. “I suppose you mean, as I infer from your indictment, that I teach them not to acknowledge the gods which the state acknowledges, but some other new divinities or spiritual agencies in their stead” (Plato 7). Meletus agrees with this characterization by Socrates and Socrates proceeds to mount his defense against this charge.

Regarding the second charge of corrupting the youth, Socrates explains the falseness to the jury of Meletus’ statements. As stated before, Meletus agrees with Socrates’ assessment of his argument. In mounting his defense, Socrates points out the contradictory nature of the claims Meletus presents. “I do not as yet understand whether you affirm that I teach other men to acknowledge some gods, and therefore that I do believe in gods, and am not an entire atheist—this you do not lay to my charge,--but only you say that they are not the same gods which the city recognizes—the charge is that they are different gods…” (Plato 7). Meletus then clarifies his statement and accuses Socrates of being an atheist with respect to all gods. Socrates rebuts and asserts that while he undoubtedly denounces certain gods, he is not an atheist with respect to all gods. The bulk of the defense that Socrates delivers for the charge of corruption of the youth therefore, is essentially a “he said, he said” battle about his character as well as his beliefs regarding theism.

Revisiting the first charge of Socrates attributing the workings of the world to natural causes and spreading these ideas as a sophist, his defense addresses the incorrect rumors. “But the simple truth is, O Athenians, that I have nothing to do with physical speculations…the report that I am a teacher, and take money; this accusation has no more truth in it than the other” (Plato 2). While Socrates says little more regarding natural explanations for the world and disregard of certain gods, Socrates delves into the true nature of the sophist, which he is not. Socrates explains how he witnessed the corruption of sophists during his travels and how one victim of the sophists, Callias, spent a great deal of money on these traveling salesmen of knowledge. Socrates, being a man of logic and pure knowledge, attempted to talk sense into Callias rather than take advantage of his apparent gullibility (Plato 2). Despite Socrates’ refutes against his accusers, the jury found him guilty.

Socrates is presented with a choice by the court: exile or death. Socrates chooses the latter and his reasoning is given after sentencing. “The difficulty, my friends, is not to avoid death, but to avoid unrighteousness; for that runs faster than death. I am old and move slowly, and the slower runner has overtaken me, and my accusers are keen and quick, and the faster runner, who is unrighteousness, has overtaken them” (Plato 15). Socrates’ reasoning, therefore, lies in his belief that his punishment of death is far less severe than his accusers who have slipped into a mindset of unrighteousness. Socrates does not look at death as much of a punishment it seems, and even refers to it as an award and a punishment that he willingly accepts because it is what the jury has decided. Socrates also refers to the punishment waiting for those who found him guilty because they are wicked and incorrect in their assessment of his character. It can be concluded that Socrates believes his sentence is fair, especially in comparison to his accusers’ sentence of a life deprived of the truth and knowledge. In his acceptance of death, Socrates also delivers one of his most famous quotations.

When Socrates is deciding whether to accept exile or death, he rationalizes on the side of death. “…Socrates, but cannot you hold your tongue, and then you may go into a foreign city, and no one will interfere with you?” (Plato 15). In this context, Socrates delivers his argument of the unexamined life. “…and if I say again that daily to discourse about virtue, and of those other things about which you hear me examining myself and others, is the greatest good of man, and that the unexamined life is not worth living, you are still less likely to believe me” (Plato 15). Socrates means that life’s value lies in discovery, inquiry and thinking about oneself and the world. For him, being silent and resorting to running away from one city to flee to another is in essence, refusing to embrace discovery and inquiry and thus turning his back on what he believes makes life worth living in the first place. Despite his sentence, Socrates is asserting and standing by his beliefs that the pursuit of knowledge is worth the cost, including the cost of his life. He is also wise enough to realize that the majority of the jury, responsible for his conviction, will not believe his assertions.

Apology illustrates points of contention surrounding the life of not only Socrates but his accusers. While Socrates is not viewed as guilty by all of the jury, the majority of the jury believed the verbal accusations mounted by Meletus and others. As Socrates pointed out, his death sentence, while undoubtedly based on unfounded knowledge, is far more preferable to a life sentence of unrighteousness. Since the accusations stood only on verbal accounts, Socrates, in turn, mounted his defense through verbal accounts. Upon learning of his fate, Socrates stood by his initial beliefs. He did not waver in the face of death and did not accept a life of exile and silence.

Work Cited

Plato. Apology. N.p.: n.p., 360 B.C. Print.