Summary

Socrates begins his speech by defending his manners in advance, and criticizing his opponents for the same. He contrasts his simple, unadorned, and even clumsy speech with his opponents’: deceitful and clever. In so doing, Socrates seems to assert that the truth can not be attractive, as if any attractive statement must therefore be false. He also contrasts his inexperience in court (this is his first time) with his opponents.

Socrates moves onto the trial. His accusers are, in effect, two groups: his former accusers, who criticized him vociferously when he was philosophizing; his latter accusers (Meletus, Lycon, …), who have now brought him to trial. In Socrates’ view, he must defend himself from both accusers in this trial to stand free.

He starts with the former accusers. They criticized him on two accounts:

1. his critical and skeptical attitude
2. misrepresentation and cleverness in speech, which he teaches others.

These attributes seem to paint Socrates as a sophist and a pre-Socratic thinker (simultaneously). Popular caricatures at the time, because of ingrained hostility in Athens to the two groups.

The pre-Socratics is a grouping of multiple (schools of) Greek philosophers prior to Socrates. These men (mostly male) were interested in questions regarding cosmology and metaphysics. These inclinations, and the very wild and ridiculous theories of theirs, led to a not-so-stellar perception of their activities in Greek society. They were seen as challenging Greek orthodoxy (established by poets) in religion, and generally with their ‘heads-in-the-clouds’ (the theme of Aristophanes’ play ‘Clouds’).

But, as he argues, it is reductive to paint Socrates as a successor of the pre-Socratics. He does not ‘dishonor this sort of knowledge’, but he ‘ha[s] no share in such things’.

The sophists, meanwhile, were a contemporary phenomenon in Athens. They were teachers of ‘wisdom’ to the rich and affluent classes of Athens. They too were controversial for a few reasons: they charged for their teaching; were usually foreigners; and taught particularly worldly (and thus disreputable) subjects such as rhetoric.

Socrates also disagrees with this characterization. His opposition to the worldly nature of Sophistic teachings makes this clear.

Still, if he is neither Sophist nor pre-Socratic, why is Socrates so despised? To answer this, Socrates recalls the experience that led him to his philosophizing lifestyle. Chaerephon, a friend of Socrates, once asked the oracle of Delphi whether there was anyone wiser than Socrates. The Phythia replied that there was no man wiser than Socrates.

This puzzled Socrates ‘for I [Socrates] am conscious that I am not at all wise, either much or little’. To prove the oracle wrong, he sought to find someone wiser than him. He went to a prominent politician, one regarded by himself and others as wise, and interrogated him. But he did not come out with the same impression. When he tried revealing this to the politician, he only incurred his enmity.

Socrates figured, then, that if he was wise, it was because he made no pretension to wisdom. As he repeated his inquiries — questioning poets, and artisans — he became more sure of this interpretation. While skilled at the work they did, they were clueless as to the more fundamental (and thus, meaningful) questions of life.

Socrates describes his inquiries as coming ’to the god’s aid’, as a sort of divine mission given to him that he must complete. Like the prophets, it comes at great personal cost to him to challenge the orthodoxy of his day. He says ‘I am in ten-thousandfold poverty because of my devotion to the god’.

Over time, Socrates assembled a group of wealthy and young followers who ’enjoy hearing human beings examined … and in turn they attempt to examine others’. Their escapades contributed to the charge of corrupting the youth.

Next, Socrates moves to disprove his latter accusers. They (this time in a court of law) accuse him of:

1. corrupting the youth
2. not believing in the gods in whom the city believes, but in other daimonia that are novel

He tackles first the accusation of corrupting the youth in his usual Socratic manner. He asks Meletus to define “the one that makes them [the youth] better”, in order to determine the inverse (i.e. the one that corrupts them). Meletus is coerced into admitting that “all human beings make them better”, while only Socrates corrupts them. An exaggerated charge.

In the case of horses, it is the few (horse-rearers) that make them better; Socrates claims, then, that the same is the case for humans too. In such a case, Meletus’s argument that everyone makes men better, but Socrates alone corrupts them is (supposedly) flawed.

Furthermore, if Socrates is indeed doing harm unto others, he would reasonably expect retaliation. If so, why would he corrupt them? He must, therefore, be doing it involuntarily. In that case, it would seem wiser to take this matter up with Socrates privately, since the law is for punishing, not learning.

Socrates moves onto the latter accusation. He first catches Meletus in a contradiction when he cross-examines him. Meletus claims that:

1. Socrates doesn’t believe in any gods
2. Socrates believes in novel daimonia

These two are contradictory; how can you believe in divine matters, but not the divine itself? He does not deal with the main argument: that he is spreading novel daimonia, however.

Socrates reminds us that his main opponents are his first accusers. He is fully expecting to be convicted, because of the ill-repute he has accumulated for his deeds. But, if asked to surrender his practice for freedom, he would not. He considers only whether his actions are just and good, and would not sacrifice them if so. It is a duty to him by a god, and he ‘must stay and run the risk [of death]’.

He also gives his views on death. Humans can not reasonably expect to know what comes after death, and it is thus ridiculous to fear it.

He then chastises the people of Athens.

Men of Athens, I respect and love you, but I shall obey the god rather than you, and while I live and am able to continue, I shall never give up philosophy or stop exhorting you and pointing out the truth to any one of you whom I may meet, saying in my accustomed way: “Most excellent man, are you who are a citizen of Athens, the greatest of cities and the most famous for wisdom and power, not ashamed to care for the acquisition of wealth and for reputation and honor, when you neither care nor take thought for wisdom and truth and the perfection of your soul?” And if any of you argues the point, and says he does care, I shall not let him go at once, nor shall I go away, but I shall question and examine and cross-examine him, and if I find that he does not possess virtue, but says he does, I shall rebuke him for scorning (29e)

He praises his philosophizing, claiming ’no greater good’ has arisen for Athens than his service. ‘Not from money does virtue come, but from virtue comes money and all of the other good things for human beings both privately and publicly’. He claims that sentencing him will harm them more than him.

He claims his duty is as a gadfly, stinging a horse (Athens) out of its sluggishness. He does not get anything out of it, receiving no pay at all, but in fact suffers for it. He does it for the ‘voice’ that comes to him. He also defends his lack of political activity, as ‘if someone who really fights for the just is going to preserve himself even for a short time, it is necessary for him to lead a private rather than a public life’.

The jury finds Socrates guilty. According to Athenian law, Socrates can propose an alternative punishment (to death). However, Socrates does not take this seriously; he demands Olympic honors (hardly a punishment!), but is convinced to request a fine. He does not care for death, for reasons explained. Imprisonment would be unpalatable to him, for it would be akin to slavery. Finally, banishment would simply result in another city trying him. After all, Socrates does not plan to give up on his divine duty — to him, “the unexamined life is not worth living”.

The jury, understandably displeased by his arrogance, punishes him with death. Socrates, to the people who voted to spare him, tells them not to fear for him; death is not to be feared, and a good man can not be harmed in life nor death. He encourages them to hold his sons to the same standard he outlined in his apology. To those who voted to punish him, he says “It is not difficult to avoid death, gentlemen of the jury, it is much more difficult to avoid wickedness, for it runs faster than death”.

His final statement: “But now it is time to go away, I to die and you to live. Which of us goes to a better thing is unclear to everyone except to the god.”

Exegesis

The surface interpretation of this dialogue is as an actual legal defence to the charges presented against Socrates. An apology, in this context, does not show repentence but means something like defence. However, Socrates’ words throughout the dialogue show that — far from defending himself — he seems to be asking for punishment. The defense that he does offer is extremely weak. How is comparing youth to horses valid? His assumption that corruption leads to retaliation is unqualified. In typical Socratic fashion, he also manages to elegantly leave major parts of the charges unadressed. Needless to say, Socrates did not take his defense seriously. In any case, it seems reasonable to think that Socrates was absolutely guilty of the charges brought against him.

Another part of the ‘defence’ aspect is the grand sort of defense that Socrates presents; he does not merely defend against the legal charges brought against him, but against all attacks on his life and method. This is a step closer to Socrates real intentions, as he seems to not care much for the actual trial. For him, this is an opportunity to defend his life and philosophizing. It makes sense, then, for him to conduct the trial in a quintessentially Socratic manner. He claims that his philosophizing incurs hatred, and yet uses it at a trial where he might be punished with death!

Given that Socrates was likely aware of his guilt, the dialogue can be seen as an attempt at a transvaluation of Athenian society. It is possible that Socrates was angling to attain martyrdom, and thus cement his influence for posterity. The latter parts of his speech — aiming for the death penalty, for instance — indicate something like this.

The Socratic manner that Socrates lays out here is a sort of third way between the Sophists and the pre-Socratics. Socrates is said to have brought philosophy down to earth, as most of his dialogues have to do with ethical and other ‘worldly’ concerns. Still, these aspects can not be completely divorced from metaphysics.

• Plato
• Socrates
• Philosophy