The trial of Socrates, Philosophy, College Term Papers.com


		Data Bases
		• Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism?

		Links
		• Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com

		Free Essays
		• Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers

Search Lots of Essays

Back to Subjects - Philosophy

The trial of Socrates

The trial of Socrates The trial of Socrates is an excellent source of events during the period in which Socrates lived and died. Athens was a democratic city with much pride in their freedom. Especially their freedom of speech. Socrates was a political philosopher who did not agree with these freedoms provided by the Athenic democracy. However, it is his trial in which both the democracy of Athens and Socrates himself show their hypocrisy. It is this hypocrisy that makes the trial and death of Socrates quite ironic. Athens, the city in which Socrates resided, was a free democratic city that was governed by all citizens in a fair democracy as seen in apology. It was said to be an association of free men with no single leader or king. The town prided itself on the freedom of its citizens and, especially, its freedom of speech. Most all citizens prided themselves on these views, although they respected the views of other people because of their own freedom of speech. This was the society in which Socrates lived. Socrates was a philosopher who believed that only those who are wise should rule the people. In other words, the people are not capable of government participation because they do not have the knowledge According to this philosophy; democracy is not a capable government. Other than his time spent fighting for Athens, Socrates rarely took part in any democratic actions. He spent most of his life preaching his philosophical views Socrates had many pupils to his preaching, although he denied being a teacher of philosophy. He proved this by showing them as witnesses in the court. He boasted about many topics. He also attacked the opinions of many others. He believed that one should give specific definitions of their beliefs. He had the ability to destroy any definition or proposition given to him, although he rarely gave any of his own. I believe that it is the fact that he rarely gave specific definitions that allowed him to be the large influence on his pupils that he was. Socrates was a master of good speaking. He thought that one should not be part of a community or city, but he or she should be separate from society. Throughout the trial, Socrates acted as though he wanted to lose the case as far as I can understand. He went out of his way to antagonize the jury, making comments that associated himself with certain people and ideas that were offensive to the jury. He attacked the beliefs held by the jury, knowing that they held them dearly. He wanted to die. He wanted the death penalty. The second part of the trial in Athens involved arguments over the penalty, which was also voted on by the jury. It is here that Socrates makes extreme suggestions in order to be sure that they voted for the death penalty. The jury had two choices for a penalty. One suggested by the prosecution and one given by the defense. Obviously the prosecution decided on the death penalty, while Socrates, according to the writings of Plato, originally made what could have been considered a “vulgar” suggestion. He wanted to be named a hero and be given free meals for the remainder of his life at the Prytaneum, the city hall and a place of honor. After changing his penalty once before, he eventually settled on a fine of 30 minas r, which would have been a reasonable option, had he not done the damage with his original suggestion. The jury decided to give Socrates the death penalty, with about 360 jurists voting for this means of action as Plato said in his writings. This was the result of Socrates’ own defense to die as a result of the trial. In regards to the accusations concerning Socrates’ beliefs in the gods of Athens, Socrates had forced Meletus to call him an atheist. Atheism was not illegal in Athens, and definitely not punishable by law according to my studying. However Socrates does not even attempt to press this issue. This was not the major focus of the trial. It was more of a secondary accusation, made only so that the prosecution would have a backup plan, so to say. Socrates did not need to argue this accusation, because he wanted to escape from it. Concerning his teaching to the children and other listeners within the city, Socrates needed only to side with the Athenians and convince the jury that the trial was not a trial against Socrates, but against the beliefs held by the citizens of the city. They were attacking Socrates for his exercising of the people’s right to free speech. As mentioned before, the Athenians were proud of this freedom they had, but Socrates did not use this to his advantage. He did not use the fears of the jury to his advantage. He did not want to be acquitted. He did not want to win. Socrates wanted only one thing for democracy to be disgraced. Was he successful in this attempt? By being convicted, he showed many faults in this democracy. These faults were the hypocritical beliefs held by the government and political system. The citizens of this democracy had a right to free speech, but yet Socrates was convicted for his. He practiced and used his right, yet he was convicted for this right as well. He spoke freely about his beliefs and ideas and had many listeners and pupils that agreed with his philosophy. He did not make any actions against the democracy that he despised so greatly. Throughout the events of the trial, both sides were quite hypocritical, although Socrates willingly became hypocritical in order to expose the hypocrisy of the government. Throughout the trial, Socrates did not deny the accusations exactly , because he actually wanted to be convicted. We can also see this in Socrates’ dialogues with his accusers. He made them talk and answer his questions which most of them were not exactly questions. His questions were as if they were answers. These are all the proofs of what he wanted to do in the trial. Finally, as for the question “Should Socrates have been convicted”, if I were the trial’s judge, I would have decided him to be guilty although he wasn’t. I think I would have awarded him. Bibliography:

Word Count: 1055