An Apology to Socrates, the Philosophic Hero

Lisa Wong

20949018

The particular passage in Plato’s Apology that is being examined occurs when Metelus accuses Socrates for corrupting the youth of Athens by teaching them to not acknowledge the gods in which their society currently worships, as he, instead, redirects their praise towards other foreign deities. Socrates tackles this accusation by delving into the distinction between: “not an entire atheist” and an “atheist simply”. In the distinction, he juxtaposes the initial accusation with a more provocative version: a complete atheist who teaches these beliefs to the youth of Athens. Despite how Socrates’ definition of the state of being “not an entire atheist” closer reflects Metelus’ initial accusation: that Socrates teaches about gods which Athens does not recognize; Metelus unhesitatingly takes up the more provocative accusation. When asked to clarify his accusation through a choice between Socrates’ distinctions, Metelus reformulates his initial accusation when he asserts: “I mean the latter—that you are a complete atheist,”. A possible explanation for this sudden shift could be because the overarching accusation is that: Socrates and his teachings are too provocative for the Athenian youth; thus, the more provocative distinction of absolute atheism would further the point. However, in his haste to strengthen the overarching argument, Metelus failed to check the validity of the statement before aligning himself with it. 

After Metelus had realigned himself with the more provocative accusation, Socrates fortifies Metelus’ realignment with a series of argument-guiding questions. Socrates’ questions contain a line of truth that on a surface level seems to irrefutably aid Metelus’ argument; however, the complexity of the question leads, rather, to enhance Socrates’ argument. One such Socratic question within the selected passage asks Metelus: “Do you mean that I do not believe in the godhead of the sun or moon, which is the common creed of all men?” This question prompts Metelus to strengthen his reformulated accusation when he confidently states: “[Socrates] says that the sun is stone, and the moon earth”. There are numerous gods in Greek mythology and even ones more notorious than Apollo and Selene. Thus, Socrates utilizes the gods’ presiding symbols “sun and moon” as a tool to tangent into something which would turn the argument to side with Socrates’ defense. Socrates responds that Metelus has mistaken him with an ancient philosopher that attempted to explain natural phenomena through scientific accounts: Anaxagoras. Anaxagoras, known for being the first philosopher of Athens, was trialed and exiled for his impious and eccentric work. Socrates’ sarcastic humor when he states that the people of Athens could easily learn about him by reading Anaxagoras’ Clazomenian and “laugh at [him] if he pretends to father such eccentricities” also has a complexity that parallels his questions. By comparing himself with an ancient philosopher who was exiled for the very reasons that Metelus has accused him of being, Socrates has made it more enticing for Metelus fortify this more provocative accusation of Socrates as an absolute atheist. However, Anaxagoras and his story has been influencing Athens for so long that the youth of his time could have easily uptake his knowledge through the cheap price of a theater ticket. In a society that aligns intelligence with aristocracy, allowing the Anaxagoras’ teachings to sink to level of public theater not only removes Socrates from the origin of responsibility of corrupting the Athenian youth; he furthermore disassociates himself from Anaxagoras’ impious reputation in order to defend his own. It is important to note that every break in Socrates’ argument ends with Metelus answering Socrates’ guided questions with the strong assertion that he is an absolute atheist.

After Socrates has strengthened Metelus’ confidence in his reformulated accusation, he then redirects the trial to Metelus’ contradiction. Metelus is now on trial for being a liar as Socrates cannot be both a believer of unrecognized gods, as well as, an atheist who does not believe in gods. Here, the table of distinction that Socrates had established in the beginning of the argument is revisited. However, this is a mere distraction from the purpose of the trial as Socrates would have been condemned for being either a “not an entire atheist” or an absolute atheist. Ironically, Socrates accuses Metelus of deploying confusion as he states: “Has he not compounded a riddle, thinking to try me? He said to himself: - I shall see whether this wise Socrates will discover my ingenious contradiction, or whether I shall be able to deceive him and the rest of them,”. Socrates defers the blame and attention to Metelus’ contradicting accusations by accrediting Metelus for the “ingenious contradiction” which he guided Metelus into up-taking. In that moment, the matter of Socrates’ provocative teachings is shadowed by Metelus’ audacious scheme to try Socrates guilty.  In actuality, all Metelus is at fault for is disloyalty to his initial accusation out of a strong enticement for the stronger argument.

This passage is pertinent to the theme of the Apology as a whole because it is part of a progression that ends with Socrates’ defense that: his actions merely obey the gods’ order for the philosopher as a “mission of searching into myself and other men”. The above explicated passage leads to the next part of his argument when Socrates parallels his fearlessness to defend himself and his teachings with the fearlessness of the famous and revered demi-gods Achilles and Thetis. This entire line of argument redirected the accusation that Socrates is (in some form) an atheist, to Socrates defending and practicing philosophy in the name of the gods. Socrates has reconfigurated his relationship to the gods in a way that not only defends his position but elevates it. This account of the trial as a defense of Socrates and philosophy served as a promotion for Plato’s new found school during the time that the Apology was published.

But he was condemned to death anyways so it doesn’t matter. 

P.S. I don't know how to get the highlight to disappear, so my Apology.