College of Southern Nevada
PHIL 102 - 1005
March 15, 2013
In Apology by Plato, Socrates, who is convicted and sentenced to death by the jury of Athenian citizens, not only pleads his innocence, but also expresses his opinion on democracy. The speeches and dialogues Socrates makes in this book raises a question for the reader whether the jury of Athenian citizens is justified in convicting Socrates and condemning him to death. Although Socrates believes that he is innocent, the jury has justification. It is my contention that the jury is justified by the legitimacy of democracy. I will use the presentations Socrates makes in his defense to show how Socrates fails persuading the jury, which represents Athens as a whole, and how his failure justifies the decision of the jury.
In the court, Socrates does not try his best not to be convicted but acts in accordance with his beliefs, and this manner with his unconventional ideas makes the jury consider him a dangerous figure who may destroy the foundation of the state. He begins from the point of departure and tries to refute the first set of accusations against him. The fist set of accusations is as follow: “Socrates is an evildoer, 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” (Apology). Against the fist charge, inquiring into the earth and heaven, Socrates asserts that he has nothing to do with that sort of knowledge; however, he does not exhibit any proof but just keeps denying strongly, saying non of these is true and this kind of gossip is manipulated by his enemies who are jealous. Against the second charge, he does not even mention anything about it; he just ignores it somehow. And against the third charge, he says that he has never educated people and made money from it. Again, Socrates is not actually answering...