Charmaine Chong

GSI: Kuan
8 October, 2016

Plato’s Apology

            The Apology presents Plato’s account and interpretation of the trial of Socrates in which he defended himself against the accusations of corrupting the minds of the youth and against the religion of Athens. Through Socratic dialogue, Socrates protests against his accusers by making the claim that the pursuit of truth is essential and that he did not fear death itself but the fact that an innocent man like himself has been sentenced to death.

In this particular passage, Socrates gives his response on the reason why he prefers to have dialogue with individuals rather than participating in politics in the public sphere. He highlights his justification for such practice, saying that, for one, this particular desire for conversing with others is a “sign that I have had ever since I was a child.” This supernatural sign, according to Socrates, is a voice that “comes to me and always forbids me to do something which I am going to do, but never commands me to do anything.” This mysterious and omnipresent voice is the reason for him to not be a politician. Overtime, he also learned that he has made a right decision to follow the voice because he would not have survived this long and done any good to the public had he “venture to come forward in public and advise the state.” To make his argument more clear, Socrates says that in the case of a war, a person who “fight[s] for the right” and desire to survive longer, “must have a private station and not a public one.” With that, Socrates highlights his understanding of his role as a philosopher and teacher, one that is although different from soldiers fighting in a physical war, he himself would be able to do good for whoever wants to learn.

He then goes on by giving two examples to prove his point. The two stories he told revolve around his desire to do what is right but resulted in near death situations. Through the two examples, Socrates emphasizes how much he values justice and the ways in which dialogue can lead individuals to the “cross-examination of the pretenders to wisdom.” The stories also further prove his reasoning on why he made the decision to not be a politician.

In defending himself against the accusations of corrupting the youth, Socrates is sure that he has been given the divine duty by God, “the sign,” to be in the place to educate. He asserts the truthfulness of the statement, saying “if not true, would soon be refuted.” He is confident of his methodologies and that he is not corrupting the youth as he argues, if he had in fact corrupted some of the youth, those who have had conversations with him prior to the trial would “come forward as accusers and take their revenge.” But the fact that none of them have accused Socrates of “giving bad advice,” shows that no one has “suffered at my hands.” He thus, in defending his teachings, finds himself in the position to help individuals to gain wisdom because it is only with wisdom can a person do good. To Socrates, it is through working in a “private station” that allows him to have continuous conversations with different people, to teach about inquiry and understanding. Thus, what he is doing is not corrupting the minds but expanding them.  

Socrates’ explanation of the rationale behind his choice to not “engage in politics” is important as it sheds light to his ideal form of philosophy and the morals of philosophers. He asserts the importance of “truth” and the ways in which philosophy leads people to justice, and truth. Socrates’ own rhetoric also echoes to his claim. The fact that he uses dialogue to directly address his audience, rather than the structured rigid language, shows his commitment to putting his values and ideals into practice.