Socrates Apology
Socrates’ Apology
While every effort has been used to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the information contained in Socrates’ Apology, his philosophy included the prospect that an individual could receive inspiration from a higher source. His primary tool for interpreting reality, within this case in point, was reason. Socrates simply and elegantly equates evil and wrong doing with ignorance simply because he believed in a fully informed person who according to him ‘knew himself’. For this reason, a person would naturally pursue the good out of enlightened self-interest. Based on the working example that the existence of evil and suffering lies at the core of every philosophical system, I agree that ignorance is the chief source of all wrongdoing. Knowledge, therefore, is an intrinsic good toward which everyone ought to strive.
Koritansky is of the opinion that, Socrates sets the standards of right behavior. As Socrates is putting himself in his enemies’ position, and, indeed, quoting their words, nothing is commoner than this transition from the direct to the indirect mode of speech. Socrates presents himself in the Apology as someone who questions others about virtue and who examines or proves false his critics by means of an elenchus wherever he is answered inadequately. He also presents himself, however, as the servant of Apollo, as someone whose divinely inspired mission is not simply to prove false people but to get them to care about virtue and their psyches, above everything else. If agents know what they ought to do, then they could not do otherwise than what is rationally required, and that, therefore, the only cause of wrong doing would be ignorance. Unknown evil cannot come about to good men (73).
Socrates divides his Apology into three: First, there is the defense so properly called; second, the shorter address in the mitigation of the penalty; and thirdly, the final words of prophetic appeal and criticism. The principal part of his apology begins with his colloquial style; as an enemy of rhetoric Socrates knows the truth. Socrates further separates his accusers into two groups; first is the anonymous accuser, which he terms as public opinion. From the earliest years, the whole world heard Socrates was a youth corrupter. Furthermore, they had considered him mocked in the midst of Aristophanes. Secondly, they were declared accusers, who were the mouth-piece of the rest. The allegation by both parties was summed up in a formula. The first part of the formula ascertained that, ‘other than being a curious person, Socrates was an evil-doer searching into the earth, above and below the heavens. What’s more, he had the capability of making the worse look as if it was the best cause. In the second part of the formula, ‘Socrates was regarded as an evil-doer as well as a corrupter who did not take delivery of the gods whom the government received, but introduced other divinities. The last words in his apology give the impression of the actual allegation. With reference to the second part of the formula, it can be regarded as a summary of public judgment, and therefore takes responsibility of the officially permitted style (Reeve 67).
According to Plato and Benjamin, the answer commences by freeing confusion. In his statements to the comic poets, as well as, in the view of the crowd, he had been recognized with the physical science teachers and Sophists had not made any error on their part. For both of them, Socrates own up respect to the court, which differs with his approach of interruption in relation to other places. Regarding his natural way of life, he is familiar with nothing. This is, however, not because he hates such quests, but due to the fact that he was ignorant. Furthermore, he never uttered a word concerning them, and never spoke a word regarding them. Socrates was never remunerated for conducting instructions, this is a mistaken perception. The reason for not getting any remuneration was due to the assumption that he had nothing to teach. On the other hand, he praises Evenus for his principles in virtue. What’s more, he is not that wise to think of death as either good or evil. Socrates is certain that by ignoring his sense of duty, he will be reserving evil. For this reason, Socrates swore to abide by God’s rule instead of man. In Socrates, in his defense, declared to keep on preaching to each and every one regardless of their ages so as to achieve necessities of virtue along with improvement. Socrates was of the view that if people deny listening to his teachings he will still carry on his criticism. Socrates’ approach of winning the hearts of the youth depended on upholding morals, an approach which he was not willing to let go in compliance to the gods, regardless of the fact the thousand deaths that awaited him. To articulate the importance of expressing oneself in a unique and self-aware manner, Socrates is hoping that the people will agree to let him live because he was their heaven-sent companion, and for this reason they will never find another such as him or, as he might have been ridiculously labeled, the nuisance who agitates the steed into action (78).
In his quest of trying to promote knowledge, Socrates had been instructing the citizens without a fee or reward. Whether his students turned up during instruction or not, he could not reasonably be charged with their resultant ignorance, for he had never swore to teach them. They might have come for instruction if they wanted or kept away if they wanted. This was a clear indication of the people’s effort of trying to eradicate ignorance (Reeve 50). Socrates was based on an unshakeable conviction that knowledge was in principle attainable, but that, if there was be any hope of attaining it, the debris of confused and misleading ideas such as which filled most men’s mind had to clear away with first. Only then could the positive search of knowledge begin.
With regard to the method in its Greek sense, once a person had understood the right way to the goal, friends and colleagues of that person would be ready to seek it. Philosophy was thus summed up for him in the idea of the common search, a conception of the purpose of discussion directly contrary to the sophisticated idea of it as a contest aiming at the overthrow of an opponent. To be Socratic is not to follow any system of philosophical doctrine. It implies first and foremost an attitude of mind, an intellectual humility easily mistaken for arrogance, since the true Socratic is convinced of the ignorance not only of himself but of all mankind. Three fundamental theses of Socrates’ argument are so closely related as to form scarcely separable parts of a single whole. They are: virtue is knowledge; its converse that wrongdoing can be due to ignorance and must therefore is considered involuntary. The Socratic paradox, as it is usually called, that virtue in knowledge bears directly on the characteristically fifth century controversy over the method of acquiring it, whether by teaching or otherwise; and for this reason it has been necessary to say something about elsewhere. It puts Socrates squarely among his contemporaries, the great Sophists with whom he was crossing swords (Plato and Benjamin 67).
Conclusion
We can bring to a close that, no evil befalls good men. Good, within this setting has been used to refer to self-awareness. Despite the fact that determination has been used to ensure the accuracy along with reliability of the information contained in Socrates’ Apology, his way of life included the prospect that an individual could receive inspiration from a higher source. His primary tool for interpreting reality, within this case in point, was reason. Socrates simply and elegantly equates evil and wrong doing with ignorance simply because he believed in a fully informed person who according to him ‘knew himself’. In addition, Socrates focused on the unshakeable principle that knowledge was an attainable principle, but that, if there was be any hope of attaining it, the debris of confused and misleading ideas such as which filled most men’s mind had to clear away with first. Ignorance is indeed the chief source of all wrongdoing. Knowledge, therefore, is an intrinsic good toward which everyone ought to strive.
Works Cited
Koritansky, Peter K. The Philosophy of Punishment and the History of Political Thought. Columbia, Mo: University of Missouri Press, 2011. Print.
Plato, and Benjamin, Jowett. Apology. Auckland: Floating Press, 2011. Internet Resource.
Reeve, C D. C. Socrates in the Apology: An Essay on Plato’s Apology of Socrates. S.l.: Hackett Pub. Co, 1990. Print.
