Nikki Huett
Dr. Andrew Jacobs
Great Books I
18 October 2018
Socrates’ Contradiction in “The Apology”
In “The Apology” by Plato, we have our main character of the story, Socrates. In this chapter, Socrates is being held accountable for his decisions of being an irreligious philosopher and not believing in the same gods as everyone else. He’s not only irrational for choosing this lifestyle, but for how he contradicts himself at one point in this chapter. On page 31, Socrates states, “For if you kill me you will not easily find another like me, who, if I may use such a ludicrous figure of speech…” Then, eight pages later, he states, “For I say there will be more accusers of you than there are now..” He stated that the type of person he is will never be replicated, but later he states there will be more like him. Therefore, contradicting himself. Philosophers may make good arguments, but those arguments are not always perfectly crafted.
Socrates is in his seventies around the time this chapter takes place, but his old age should not displace him from being an untrustworthy philosopher. Let us first start off with a more in depth analysis of the two lines referenced in the introduction. In the first line, Socrates states that there will be nobody left after his death who will be as vigorous as him, but as for the second line, he says the endless accusers will take his place accusing the Athenians for false accusations. Though worded differently, the latter line is the exact opposite of what Socrates is trying to prove to his murderers. Throughout his life, Socrates has made fair arguments (ex: the argument on justice in The Republic) ,but that does not leave him without flaws in certain ones. When I mention flaws, I do not mean to say that philosophers are not human because they obviously are. I just mean to say the unfortunate part of being a philosopher is that they are controversial and problematic due to varying opinions on certain matters. I digress, though being a skillful speaker and a very popular one of his time, Socrates continues to confuse both the audience and his accusers with the way he chooses to word certain parts of his argumentative case.
Ironically, Socrates even makes an point in the beginning of this chapter by saying, “..Let the judge decide justly and the speaker speak truly../For I have had many accusers, who accused me of old, and their false charges have continued during many years..”(20). Though he makes a false charge and most likely has made many more that we, as readers, have overlooked. It could also be inferred from the text that Socrates as always seen himself as the superior opponent and, therefore, thinks he can do no wrong whatsoever in his lifetime. This narcissism can be shown by his actions towards Meletus by constantly bullying him into answering questions faster and by the following quote which says, “Observe, Meletus, that you are silent, and have nothing to say. But is not this rather disgraceful, and a very considerable proof of what I was saying, that you have no interest in the matter?” (25). Socrates’ objective as a philosopher is to prove that he is in the right, but he does so in such an insulting way that makes him too senseless to be considered a favorable philosopher.
Now, despite this chapter being called “Apology”, Socrates was not even close to even apologizing nor was he making excuses. He did not feel any remorse. He was there to do his job as a defendant and a philosopher which was to prove that he had always been in the right. Continuing in this proposition of self value, Socrates also assumes that he is owed value and honor for all he has done for the world. He is naive in believing that he is a good man and that because of this characteristic, no harm shall come to him. Though, he is aware of his ignorance and knows that he will not win the trial, he persists to not take what he knows to be his death trial seriously. When he received more votes on the fact that he was guilty than not, Socrates thinks he deserves better and replies by saying, “What would be a reward suitable to a poor man who is your benefactor, who desires leisure that he may instruct you?../There be no more fitting reward than maintenance in the Prytaneum” (36). He states here, ridiculously, that he should be able to sit where the beloved Olympians sit when they eat their rewarding dinner. Knowing how Socrates act, we can come to think of this is a joke. Socrates’ inability to take anything realistically is proof that he is again, very untrustworthy.
In conclusion, I do believe that Socrates should not have received the death penalty for,essentially, stating his opinions on matters. It is not a crime as death deserving as homicide. The only true thing that I agree with regarding Socrates is that he deserved a better death than what he received. I am not pointing out that Socrates is a horrific argumentator, he is talented. I merely just wanted to point out how as right as a philosopher thinks they are and/or may seem, they are flawed and could disallude themselves away from reality to the point where they no longer are rational as they once were. For most matters, philosophers (and also Socrates) make sense in what they are saying in their points of view, it is when they travel into the area of the unknown, where their statements get a little hazy and some of them think that they hold a better mental stability than than others by thinking this way and this could end up, not benefiting them in the end with winning their case. This could have been one of the reasons Socrates received so many votes over the fact of him being guilty rather than unguilty.The main job of philosophers is to convince others, not to contradict themselves.
Works Cited:
(For all citations found in the above paper, all of their page numbers were listed from the exact same chapter and book listed below)
Plato. “Apology.” The Trial and Death of Socrates: Four Dialogues. Translated by Benjamin Jowett, Dover,1992.
