Socrates Not Guilty Analysis

Words: 778
Pages: 4

Considering whether Socrates is guilty or not, it is definitely all to be decided of the norm and ideal standards of Athens at that time, and the weight of his accusers and the wrongdoings he allegedly committed. So, is Socrates guilty or innocent of his crimes and charges that they held against him and that the people accuse him of, or is Socrates a victim of being wiser then the rest? With that being said, the way I have looked at it, from my perspective Socrates is not guilty of his accusations and they have accused him of crimes that are irrelevant. Crimes that in the everyday world today would be blown off in the matter of hours. Therefore, his felonies should not be put to court and Socrates shouldn’t have been accused of his wits. …show more content…
Rather then accusing Socrates right then and there if he was guilty they let him prolong his beliefs and decide to charge him when they saw he was “causing more harm.” Right there is a belief that they had enough of Socrates words and decided to charge him, when Socrates thought there was no harm for so long. Then, they accused him of not believing in the gods, but as to our knowledge and what he has said Socrates did believe in them or something else unworldly. He states, “if anyone believes in human affairs but not in humans, in equine affairs but not in horses, in flute music but not in flute players” So, what we can conclude from this is that he trying to convince them that there is something there everybody just believes in something different. So, he is saying that he does not object in a God, but he does believe in the supernatural on this earth. At this point of the trial Socrates is doing what he knows what to do and use his words to speak for him. But Meletus has accused Socrates of not believing in any gods at all, which was not what Socrates was being on trial for, it was for not believing in the oracle. He has used his wits to once again be sneaky and use his knowledge to help him get out of this