Name: ___Casey Shepherd_____________________________________
In Platos “The apology”, Socrate is put on trial and charged with corrupting the youth and failing to acknowledge the gods that the city acknowledges. The main premises of Socrates argument are, as he speaks with truth and directness, which he always does, his acts stem from a prophecy by the oracle of Delphi which claimed he was the wisest of all men. He assumes he is not wise in that he knows he knows nothing. Therefore, it is his duty to question “wise” men and to expose their false wisdom as ignorance. This evidence of the Oricle is speculation. Or Socrates assumption this is what the Oricle meant.
Socrates is accused as a wrongdoer who meddles with inquiries into things beneath the earth and in the heavens and who makes the weaker reason appear the stronger, and who teaches these same things. His defense is if you speak to any witness who has heard him speak, has never heard him say such things. This would be evidence if witnesses were call to trial and confirmed this statement. Then again, he is assuming they would say they never heard him say such things.
Socrates admits he has been imitated by the sons of young wealthy men in hearing Socrates cross examining, the young men have proceeded to cross examine men who think they know a great deal when they know little or nothing. He defends, when these men are defamed, they get angry with me instead of themselves. Assuming this is why they blame Socrates for corrupting the youth.
The charges brought against myself by Meteltus, for a) corrupting the youth b) does not believe in the gods the state believes in. Socrates defense is Meteltus is a), playing a joke by lightly bring men to trial and b), pretending to have zealous interest in matters to which he has not given a moment’s thought
He defends, he has gained this unjust reputation by reason of a certain wisdom, reason human wisdom, in that I am really wise…..He later states, and human reason is worth little or nothing.
Defend the attack on his somewhat tainted reputation, tales told to the children, with motives of resentment and prejudice. Now I am being attacked by Meletus and his associates. So set aside these prejudices.
Socrates cross-examines Meletus, in order to defend himself against the charges of corrupting the minds if the youth. Meletus assumes that laws make people good, jury men are responsible for making the laws, assumes all members are equally good influences, and the assembly is open to all adult males. Because he assumes this to be true, then the entire population of Athens has a positive influence on the youth, except Socrates. The Soundness and validity of this premise can be assumed to be a false generalization of the political office and the people of the city of Athens.
Socrates cross-examines Meletus, in order to defend himself against the charges of believing in gods other than the gods believed by the state. Meletus then states he believes Socrates does not in the gods in anyway whatever. Socrates suggests it would be impossible to believe in human matters without believing in human beings. Meletus claims Socrates believes and teaches others to believe in supernatural matters, which implies Socrates believes in supernatural beings, or gods. Again, the argument cannot pass truth or validity, the argument is not sound. Socrates also defends, could a person believe in such things as clothes yet not in the human beings that wear them. As is the same with diving things, since Socrates believes in a divine thing, supernatural beings, it follows that he believes in divinities, Gods. Socrates sets out to discredit Meletus, the exchange is bitter. Socrates doesn’t pretend to have an interest in identifying the source of his views. The…