Plato's Apology

Navagation Bar

1. Introduction
2. Vocabulary
3. Author Biography
4. Summary
5. Excerpt
6. Works Cited

INTRODUCTION

Plato’s Apology is a look at Greek society through the eyes of Socrates’, a man being persecuted by a fellow Athenians, Meletus (representing offended poets and traditional education based on Homeric literature), Anytus (representing the politicians and the craftsmen), and Lycon (representing the rhetoricians and orators), for his corruption of the youth of Athens by not believing in the gods of the city-state and by not teaching the youth about these gods.

The Apology is Plato's recollection and interpretation of this trial, which was believed to take place in approximately 400 BC. In this dialogue Socrates explains who he is and what kind of life he has led.

VOCABULARY

Apology: from Greek word Apologia, meaning explanation or defense. Not to be confused with apologizing.

Impiety: not believing in the Athenian gods, was a charge often used against political opponents to have them banished, especially when no other charges could be plausibly brought.

Paideia: Greek word for educate, means nurture, upbringing, rearing

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY

Plato was the youngest son of Ariston and Perictione who both came from famous wealthy families who had lived in Athens for generations. While Plato was a young man his father died and his mother remarried, her second husband being Pyrilampes. It was mostly in Pyrilampes' house that Plato was brought up. Aristotle writes that when Plato was a young man he studied under Cratylus who was a student of Heracleitus, famed for his cosmology, which is based on fire being the basic material of the universe. It almost certain that Plato became friends with Socrates when he was young, for Plato's mother's brother Charmides was a close friend of Socrates.

The Peloponnesian War was fought between Athens and Sparta between 431 BC and 404 BC. Plato was in military service from 409 BC to 404 BC but at this time he wanted a political career rather than a military one. At the end of the war he joined the oligarchy of the Thirty Tyrants in Athens set up in 404 BC, one of whose leaders being his mother's brother Charmides, but their violent acts meant that Plato quickly left. In 403 BC there was a restoration of democracy at Athens and Plato had great hopes that he would be able to enter politics again. However, the excesses of Athenian political life seem to have persuaded him to give up political ambitions. In particular, the execution of Socrates in 399 BC had a profound effect on him and he decided that he would have nothing further to do with politics in Athens.

Plato left Athens after Socrates had been executed and traveled in Egypt, Sicily and Italy. In Egypt he learnt of a water clock and later introduced it into Greece. In Italy he learned of the work of Pythagoras and came to appreciate the value of mathematics. This was an event of great importance since from the ideas Plato gained from the disciples of Pythagoras he formed his idea:

“... that the reality which scientific thought is seeking must be expressible in mathematical terms, mathematics being the most precise and definite kind of thinking of which we are capable. The significance of this idea for the development of science from the first beginnings to the present day has been immense.”

Again there was a period of war and again Plato entered military service. It was claimed by later writers on Plato's life that he was decorated for bravery in battle during this period of his life. It is also thought that he began to write his dialogues at this time.

On his return to Athens Plato founded, in about 387 BC, on land, which had belonged to Academos, a school of learning which being situated in the grove of Academos was called the Academy. Plato presided over his Academy in Athens, an institution devoted to research and instruction in philosophy and the sciences, from 387 BC until his death. His reasons for setting up the Academy were connected with his earlier ventures into politics. He had been bitterly disappointed with the standards displayed by those in public office and he hoped to train, in his Academy, young men who would become statesmen. However, having given them the values that Plato believed in, Plato thought that these men would be able to improve the political leadership of the cities of Greece.

Only two further episodes in Plato's life are recorded. He went to Syracuse in 367 BC following the death of Dionysius I who had ruled the city. Dion, the brother-in-law of Dionysius I, persuaded Plato to come to Syracuse to tutor Dionysius II, the new ruler. Plato did not expect the plan to succeed but because both Dion and Archytas of Tarentum believed in the plan then Plato agreed. Their plan was that if Dionysius II was trained in science and philosophy he would be able to prevent Carthage invading Sicily. However, Dionysius II was jealous of Dion who he forced out of Syracuse and the plan, as Plato had expected, fell apart.

Plato returned to Athens, but visited Syracuse again in 361 BC hoping to be able to bring the rivals together. He remained in Syracuse for part of 360 BC but did not achieve a political solution to the rivalry. Dion attacked Syracuse in a coup in 357, gained control, but was murdered in 354.

SUMMARY

The Apology begins with Socrates telling his 501 Athenian jurors that he will not be deceitful or use shady language. He only speaks the truth and asks the jurors to pay attention to the truth of his words, not the manner in which they’re spoken. There were two different kinds of accusers of Socrates. The first and older accusers were men who disliked Socrates even when he was younger, and he was guilty of their charges more by association than the facts. They believed that he made the weaker argument the stronger and studied physics—both of which were false accusations. The point of this part is a criticism of the Sophists who were philosophers that Socrates and Plato disliked. They charged money for their conversations, unlike Socrates, and they often pretended to be wiser than Socrates and Plato believed them to be. The opponents of Socrates wrongly placed him in this category, and Socrates explains to the jurors that he has never asked for money, nor claimed to have knowledge of things he truly doesn’t understand. Socrates says he is conscious that he isn’t wise, although he is wiser than some men because he at least knows this truth about himself. The story of Chaerephon and his trip to the oracle is meant to show the jurors that he not only believes in the city’s gods (although there is some dispute that Socrates did not truly believe), but also was commanded to lead the life of a philosopher and to accept the truth that he is the wisest man around. Although Socrates tried to refute the oracle, whenever he encountered a man who seemed to be wiser, he always found that he was indeed wiser than the other. This is part of the background that Socrates is providing for the jurors to defend himself against the old charges. Socrates believes he has neither wisdom nor ignorance. Furthermore, wisdom in one field does not mean wisdom in all or other areas. The majority blamed Socrates for the actions of his followers and wrongly accused him perhaps out of jealousy.

The recent charges (for which he was on trial) are harder to defend, and Socrates realizes this. Meletus wrote out the official charges and reads them aloud: 1) Corruption of the young 2) Not believing in the city’s gods but rather in spiritual things Socrates strongly attacks Meletus for wasting the court’s time on such absurd charges. He then argues that if he corrupted the young he did so unknowingly since Socrates believes that one never deliberately acts wrongly. If Socrates either did not corrupt the young or did so unknowingly, then in both cases he should not be brought to trial. The second charge is the charge of impiety. This is when Socrates finds an inconsistency in Meletus’ belief that Socrates is impious. If he didn’t believe in any gods (as he gets Meletus to say) then it would be inconsistent to say that he believed in spiritual things, as gods are a form of a spiritual thing. Even the disarming of his own argument doesn’t diminish Meletus’ contemptuous thoughts toward Socrates and he finishes testifying with the same attitude that he had when he began.

For a while, Socrates continues to argue against the charges, often asking and answering his own questions as if he were speaking in a conversation with one of his friends. He says that once a man has found his passion in life (as philosophy would be to Socrates) it would be wrong of him to take into account the risk of life or death that such a passion might involve. This is why Socrates remains true to his way of life even though he is on trial for his life, and will probably be sentenced to death. We know nothing of death according to Socrates, and therefore it is irrational to fear it. He also later says that his service to the god is more important than having the support of Athenians, or money, or a nicer lifestyle. He never meant to impose his thoughts on anyone, but instead to simply enjoy the company of interesting people and the opportunity to learn from others’ thoughts and conversation. Socrates claims to be a law-abiding man, and in the case of Leon of Salamis from his past, he risked death by disobeying the authorities and siding with the law. This is an important story because it provides insight into the character of Socrates based on his actions. When he was forced to choose between pleasing the majority and remaining true to the law, he chose the latter with a clear mind and clear conscience. He believed (and still believes) that the laws of the city are wiser than the men who supposedly enforce them. With that said, Socrates tells the jury that they are required to do justice with their verdict as the law would see fit, not as they personally see fit. The jury returns with a guilty verdict and Meletus asks for the penalty of death. Socrates is not angry or upset with either the jurors or his fate. It was a custom in Athens for the guilty to suggest an alternative sentence that the jurors could vote in favor of if it was acceptable. So Socrates suggests that it would be fair for him to eat free meals in the Prytaneum, which was similar to a public hall where celebrations and events were held. This seems a bit ridiculous of Socrates to suggest but he goes on to explain why he arrived at this alternative sentence and not surprisingly, the jurors vote for the original sentence of death, as suggested by Meletus. When Socrates is informed of the final verdict he again keeps his composure and closes his defense speech by saying that he would much rather have defended himself in the way that he did, than by begging and pleading for the sympathy and mercy of the jurors. Once again, Plato portrays his predecessor in a very noble way as Socrates remains true to his own ideals. He tells the jurors that they should expect a vengeance to come upon them much worse than that of guilt, because they have mistakenly condemned a great man to death. And he thanks those who voted in his favor, even inviting them to engage in conversation with him after the trial, if they would like.

Finally, Socrates tells the jury that there is hope in death and that he will enter into it with no fear. His final request is for the jurymen to make sure that Socrates’ sons grow up in the right way with an eye on their souls, just as the jurymen should mind the state of their souls. If that can be done then Socrates feels that he will have been treated justly, along with his sons.

Overall I thought this was a very good essay and brought up many interesting points about society, people, religion, and just philosophy in general.

EXCERPT

The part I’m going to read from is at the very end of Socrates’ defense, it is his closing argument right after his being sentenced to death.

Let us reflect in another way, and we shall see that there is great reason to hope that death is a good, for one of two things: - either death is a state of nothingness and utter unconsciousness, or, as men say, there is a change and migration of the soul from this world to another. Now if you suppose that there is no consciousness, but a sleep like the sleep of him who is undisturbed even by the sight of dreams, death will be an unspeakable gain. For if a person were to select the night in which his sleep was undisturbed even by dreams, and were to compare with this the other days and nights of his life, and then were to tell us how many days and nights he had passed in the course of his life better and more pleasantly than this one, I think that any man, I will not say a private man, but even the great king, will not find many such days or nights, when compared with the others. Now if death is like this, I say that to die is gain; for eternity is then only a single night. But if death is the journey to another place, and there, as men say, all the dead are, what good, O my friends and judges, can be greater than this? If indeed when the pilgrim arrives in the world below, he is delivered from the professors of justice in this world, and finds the true judges who are said to give judgment there, Minos and Rhadamanthus and Aeacus and Triptolemus, and other sons of God who were righteous in their own life, that pilgrimage will be worth making. What would not a man give if he might converse with Orpheus and Musaeus and Hesiod and Homer? Nay, if this be true, let me die again and again. I, too, shall have a wonderful interest in a place where I can converse with Palamedes, and Ajax the son of Telamon, and other heroes of old, who have suffered death through an unjust judgment; and there will be no small pleasure, as I think, in comparing my own sufferings with theirs. Above all, I shall be able to continue my search into true and false knowledge; as in this world, so also in that; I shall find out who is wise, and who pretends to be wise, and is not. What would not a man give, O judges, to be able to examine the leader of the great Trojan expedition; or Odysseus or Sisyphus, or numberless others, men and women too! What infinite delight would there be in conversing with them and asking them questions! For in that world they do not put a man to death for this; certainly not. For besides being happier in that world than in this, they will be immortal, if what is said is true.

Wherefore, O judges, be of good cheer about death, and know this of a truth - that no evil can happen to a good man, either in life or after death. He and his are not neglected by the gods; nor has my own approaching end happened by mere chance. But I see clearly that to die and be released was better for me; and therefore the oracle gave no sign. For which reason also, I am not angry with my accusers, or my condemners; they have done me no harm, although neither of them meant to do me any good; and for this I may gently blame them.

Still I have a favor to ask of them. When my sons are grown up, I would ask you, O my friends, to punish them; and I would have you trouble them, as I have troubled you, if they seem to care about riches, or anything, more than about virtue; or if they pretend to be something when they are really nothing, - then reprove them, as I have reproved you, for not caring about that for which they ought to care, and thinking that they are something when they are really nothing. And if you do this, I and my sons will have received justice at your hands.

The hour of departure has arrived, and we go our ways - I to die, and you to live. Which is better God only knows.

WORKS CITED

R.S. Brumbaugh, Plato's mathematical imagination: The mathematical passages in the Dialogues and their interpretation. (Bloomington, Ind., 1954).

W.K.C. Guthrie, A History of Greek Philosophy 4 (1975)

A.E. Taylor, Plato, the Man and His Work (7th ed., London, 1969).

J. Moravcsik, Plato and Platonism : Plato's conception of appearance and reality in ontology, epistemology, and ethics, and its modern echoes (Oxford, 1992).

G.C. Field, Plato and His Contemporaries: A Study in Fourth-Century Life and Thought (1975).