Plato's Apology
About Plato (428-348 BCE)
All of his writings are in dialogue form and the main character is usually Socrates.
Socrates was an ancient philosopher who spent his time hanging out in Athens and having conversations with famous Athenian politicians. (Socrates comes after the Pre-Socratics—see why they're called the Pre-Socratics?
Plato was a young man who liked to hang around Socrates and listen to his conversations. After Socrates died, Plato wrote up all of Socrates dialogues. There are interesting questions about which dialogues are historically accurate and which Plato made up to argue for his own philosophy. We won't worry about such historical issues.
Plato eventually founded the Academy (525 BCE). Aristotle (who we'll study later) was one of Plato's students at the Academy. This is all long after Socrates's death.
The first of Plato's dialogues we're looking it is the Apology, which is Socrates's famous defense in his criminal trial. The jury found Socrates guilty and executed him.
About the Apology
Socrates is brought to trial by Meletus (famous poet), Anytus (craftsman and politician), and Lycon (rhetorician—professional debaters; argumentative mercenaries).
They charge Socrates with committing the following "crimes":
- Corrupting the youth
- Not believing in the gods the city believes
I think it's useful to divide the Apology up into chunks so you can see how it fits together. Below is a map of the structure with page numbers showing where sections begin and end—note that the dialogue isn't actually divided up into these sections, I've simply imposed them so that it's easier to manage.
Structure of the Apology
Part 1: Defense before the verdict
Section 1: Introduction
The first four paragraphs of p. 9.
Socrates points out that he really has two sets of accusers to deal with: one set is Meletus, Anytus, and Lycon; but Socrates has a bad reputation because he's been slandered a lot in the past, so the other set of accusers Socrates wants to defend himself are all those who in the past have spread false rumors about him in Athens. He proposes to deal with this set of accusers first.
Section 2: Defense against the first set of accusers
fifth paragraph of p. 9 through third full p. of page 13
So what are the false rumors about Socrates? He says that people say he claims to be a know-it-all and someone who makes "the weaker argument the stronger," (someone who tries to trick people into thinking bad arguments are good arguments), and teaches other people to do the same thing (note that the teaching charge is somewhat related to Meletus's formal charge of corrupting the youth). Socrates points out that he's never claimed to know anything, and actually thinks he knows almost nothing (and he says there are many on the jury who can testify to this: "Once again, I can call most of you as witnesses,"). And Socrates says that he's no educator--he doesn't promise to teach people anything or accept payment in exchange for lessons.
Socrates is worried the jury will want an explanation of how Socrates got such a bad reputation if he's never done any of the bad things people say. In response, Socrates proposes to tell his story:
One day, one of Socrates went to the Oracle at Delphi (what's the Oracle at Delphi? A fortune teller that was respected in ancient Greece) and asked "Who is the wisest Athenian?" The Oracle answered: "Socrates."
Socrates doesn't believe the Oracle. So he decides that what the Oracle wants him to do is find someone wiser than he is.
Socrates starts interviewing the people in Athens who claim to be most wise. He starts with rhetoricians. He finds, to his surprise, that these people are not at all wise, but very unwise. And he makes very clear to all who listen to these conversations that these men are very foolish. He then talks to poets and then craftsmen and finds basically the same thing (ridiculing many people in the process).
Socrates realizes that he too is unwise, but where many people think they are wise, Socrates at least knows he isn't.
What the Oracle meant: human wisdom isn't worth much. The wisest human is only wise insofar as he realizes that he's not wise.
Socrates says he continues to the present interviewing people who claim to be wise and showing that they're not. In the meantime, he's earned many fans among the young men in Athens, who enjoy watching his discussions.
So this explains why people are mad at him (he's made famous men look foolish), why people think he charges the youth to teach them his tricks (young people like to watch Socrates make a fool of important people), and why people think he acts like a know-it-all. This explains the rumors while showing they're all false. So much for the first set of accusers.
Section 3: Defense against Meletus, Anytus, and Lycon
pg. 13 through first paragraph of p. 17
The charges are, again,
Being a bad influence on the young
Not recognizing the gods the state recognizes
Socrates says, Meletus brings serious charges against me regarding a matter that he doesn't take seriously at all. He shows Meletus doesn't take the matter seriously by getting him to say foolish things about it. He gets Meletus to claim that everyone in Athens except Socrates is a good influence on the young, which is ridiculous. Meletus was probably trying to win favor among the jury by claiming that they're all excellent influences on the youth, but Socrates was able to make it seem how obviously stupid this was.
Socrates then gets Meletus to say that Socrates both does and does not believe in gods, which is nonsense. Socrates asks: do you mean that I recognize different gods than the one that state recognizes, or do you meant that I recognize no gods at all (am an atheist)?
Meletus replies: I mean you don't recognize any gods.
Socrates says: that's interesting. Do you think that anyone would seriously deny the existence of horses while accepting that there is "equine activity" (horse races, and so forth). No. Or what about someone denying the existence of flute-players but believing in flute music? No.
Isn't the supernatural the activity the gods? Yes, says Meletus. And don't you say that I practice a religion of the supernatural? Yes, Meletus says.
So Socrates says, how could I believe in the supernatural, but not believe in the gods? I couldn't. He says Meletus is basically saying that both do and don't recognize the gods, which no one should take seriously.
So the charge that Socrates doesn't recognize the gods of the city makes no sense: Meletus is wasting the jury's time.
What about corrupting the youth. He gets Meletus to agree with him that anyone in their right mind would rather live with good people than bad people (why? because good people benefit you and bad people harm you). But, Meletus, Socrates asks, wouldn't corrupting the youth cause me to live with bad people? Conclusion: Socrates would not knowingly corrupt the youth.
Perhaps he has unintentionally corrupted them, but then the correct thing to do (according to Athenian law) is to educate Socrates on how to avoid corrupting the youth, not punish him.
And of course, it hasn't even been established that Socrates has corrupted anybody. Meletus didn't call forth a single witness or offer any evidence to this effect. As we'll see a bit later, the family members of the youth that Socrates has supposedly corrupted are in the courtroom and Socrates asks Meletus why he didn't call any of them as witnesses that Socrates had corrupted their sons (or nephews, brothers, etc.).
Defense in summary (remember this!):
- Not recognizing the gods: Socrates engages in the religious practices (worship of the supernatural) that constitute believing in the gods (in ancient greek religion, anyway), as Meletus even admits
- Corrupting the youth: Socrates is sensible enough that he wouldn't knowingly corrupt the youth (and those related to the youth in question have never complained, even when given the opportunity, that Socrates corrupted them)
So the charges don't stick.
Sidenote: Dr. Maloney on the "Socratic Pardox"
Dr. Maloney offers the following interpretation of Socrates argument that he wouldn't knowingly corrupt the youth: Rational people always choose what they think is best. Moral actions are always the best (highest good) and immoral actions are always the worst. So a rational person would never knowingly commit an immoral act (i.e. a crime). So rational persons should never be punished when they do something wrong.
This is supposed to be a paradox because it's an argument whose conclusion (rational people never should be punished for wrongdoing) seems obviously false, but whose premises seem plausible. If we want to avoid the conclusion, then we have to say which of the premises is false.
Dr. Maloney says that something important follows from Socrates's claim that rational people always choose what they think is best: the unexamine life is not worth living. What's the unexamined life? It's living without asking yourself—and trying to figure out—what's the best way to live. If you don't examine your life, then you probably won't figure out what's best, and so your rational choices will be based on ignorance.
Dr. Maloney is unsure that rational people always do what they think is best. He thinks it's plausible that sometimes rational people knowingly do evil. (It's important to remember that it's not at all obvious that Socrates thinks rational people never do what is evil: this is Dr. Maloney's interpretation of the Apology; read it for yourself and see if you think he's right.)
Dr. Maloney thinks that people may not be as rational as Socrates thinks. There's a lot of psychological evidence to show that people are not very good at reasoning (in certain domains, anyway).
There's also a lot of psychological evidence that suggests people aren't good at determining what makes them happy. (If I remember correctly, the only thing that has a statistical impact on people's subjective reports of happiness is the quality of their social life. People, of course, don't realize this: they think better cars or more money or being healthier or whatever will make them happier, but the evidence suggests otherwise.) Is this inconsistent with Socrates's view as Dr. Maloney interprets it?
Section 4: "The kind of man I am"
p. 17 to second to last paragraph of p. 18
Section 5: The gods' gift to the city
p. 18 - second full paragraph of p. 20
Section 6: Calling witnesses
p. 20 -- the third full paragraph of p. 21
Section 7: "I won't stop"
p. 21 through the stars on page 22
The Jury gives its verdict--guilty