6 October
2016
A
Critique of Periclean Formalism in Discourse and Truth in Plato’s The Apology
The
character of Socrates in Plato’s The Apology
is able to take the evidence against him and use it to critique the form of
the Periclean court in Athenian civil society as well as the conventions of
rhetoric and its implicit exclusion of the discourse that Plato perpetuates as
a student of Socrates, whom is characterized in this piece. He counters the
claims against him by arguing for the subjectivity of truth; filling the space
of his defense not with an opening counterclaim to the evidence presented, but
with a statement explaining the absence of certainty in relation to knowledge. He
literally and figuratively sets the stage for his argument: “I will make my
defense, and I will endeavor in the short time which is allowed to do away with
this evil opinion of me which you have held for such a long time” (Plato). He emphasizes
the culmination of this trial as a result of the way Socrates interacts with
others in Athenian society through pointing out the opinion was formed over
time, and did not occur as a result of one incident. It is not a trial where Socrates
is standing to defend himself against a specific and momentary claim, it is the
continuum of his influence of Athenian. In these moments, he presents himself contrary
to the court’s portrayal, as humble and powerless: “I hope I may succeed, if
this be well for you and me, and that my words may find favor with you.” He submits
to the sophisticated format of argument and persuasion as deployed in the
Athenian courts to begin his accusation of the court.
He
rewords his defense into more empathetic terms and turns his defense into an accusation
against his plaintiff: “What do the slanderers say? They shall be my
prosecutors, and I will sum up their words in an affidavit.” Socrates, despite everyone
in the trial room knowing what he is accused of, intentionally chooses to begin
his argument by reframing those who have brought him to trial, and reclaimed
their words for his own accusation. He repeatedly refers to Meletus, his
accuser, as a slanderer. Through his insistence of naming a slanderer, he has shifted
the actors in the trial and opened his accusation against Meletus and all of
Periclean civil order. Socrates attempts to dismantle the context in which
debates about about the validity and subjectivity of truth are allowed in a
Periclean world. Plato, through the actions of Socrates in the text, takes the
words of his prosecutors, whom he refers to as slanderers, and transforms the
evidence being used against him into an affidavit—an official statement—from
his own perspective. He uses the mechanics of the aloof and structured justice
system to manipulate and redefine the accusation towards a definition in which his
own demonization is no longer supported. This replacing of truth with
uncertainty is powerful in supporting the larger thesis of Plato’s Apology, which asks for civil society to
articulate truth and recognize the power of persuasion as is borne through
financing the Sophist schooling efforts and training future scholars in a
certain dialogue. He has put Athens on trial for denying him his right to free
discourse to challenge the disconnect between democracy in the theory and
practice of Periclean civil order.
In
his affidavit, Socrates summarizes the claims against him: "Socrates is an
evil-doer, and a curious person, who searches into things under the earth and
in heaven, and he makes the worse appear the better cause; and he teaches the
aforesaid doctrines to others. That is the nature of the accusation…” He dismisses the nature of the accusation as
generalized and not particular to Socrates’ actions, but to a societal standard
for truth and justice that is expected in Athenian society. He even refers to
these claims as laid out in a play, “…and that is what you have seen yourselves
in the comedy of Aristophanes; who has introduced a man whom he calls Socrates,
going about and saying that he can walk in the air, and talking a deal of
nonsense concerning matters of which I do not pretend to know either much or
little.” By introducing allegations of Meletus as they are presented in a play
uses Socratic irony to question the validity of the trial room in Athens as a
legitimate source for judgment. With this comparison, he has offered a view of
the court as a fabricated space controlled by those with proper training who
have prepared to perform and solicit certain responses. This is not a place
where objectivity facilitates the creation of truth in a contingent moment, but
is a mapped system where meaning is predetermined and reinforced through the
creation of a spectacle.
This
early argument in Plato’s Apology
functions as Socrates’ accusation against the Sophists who accuse him of what
he claims to not have the ability to do, as well as the accusation of the stifling
organization of the Periclean civil ideals that shape the court. Plato works
within the constraints of this formality in order to prove, through the
existing mechanism, that truth is not derived from a single, authoritative
source, but instead it is from the exchange of ideas between many perspectives.
This allows for conversation and discourse outside of the socially appropriate forums,
allowing for a larger diversity of pedagogical approaches, specifically Plato’s
own, as this was written at the time all major Sophists had their own academy
and Plato wanted to make a case for his own. From the more explicit examination
of rhetorical influence within Periclean parameters on knowledge and truth
production in Athens to the testimony of Plato’s legitimacy as a scholar vying
for students, this argument is one of the opening sequences which plays on the
malleability of the evidence used against Socrates and critiques the existing
structure for civil discourse.
Entire quote
“Well, then, I will make my
defence, and I will endeavor in the short time which is allowed to do away with
this evil opinion of me which you have held for such a long time; and I hope I
may succeed, if this be well for you and me, and that my words may find favor
with you. But I know that to accomplish this is not easy - I quite see the
nature of the task. Let the event be as God wills: in obedience to the law I
make my defence.
I will begin at the beginning, and
ask what the accusation is which has given rise to this slander of me, and
which has encouraged Meletus to proceed against me. What do the slanderers say?
They shall be my prosecutors, and I will sum up their words in an affidavit.
"Socrates is an evil-doer, and a curious person, who searches into things
under the earth and in heaven, and he makes the worse appear the better cause;
and he teaches the aforesaid doctrines to others." That is the nature of
the accusation, and that is what you have seen yourselves in the comedy of
Aristophanes; who has introduced a man whom he calls Socrates, going about and
saying that he can walk in the air, and talking a deal of nonsense concerning
matters of which I do not pretend to know either much or little - not that I
mean to say anything disparaging of anyone who is a student of natural
philosophy. I should be very sorry if Meletus could lay that to my charge. But
the simple truth is, O Athenians, that I have nothing to do with these studies.
Very many of those here present are witnesses to the truth of this, and to them
I appeal. Speak then, you who have heard me, and tell your neighbors whether
any of you have ever known me hold forth in few words or in many upon matters
of this sort. ... You hear their answer. And from what they say of this you
will be able to judge of the truth of the rest.”
No comments:
Post a Comment