Socrates never wrote a word; we know of him because of his famous pupil Plato, who put him in many of his dialogues. What we have learned is that Socrates served with distinction as a common soldier, returning from the wars he served in to become a non-stop philosopher. (Young,1988) For Socrates, the pursuit of knowledge was as essential as the air we breathe. (Hughes, 2010) His purpose in the world was to make himself and his fellow citizens better by not just search for the meaning of life, but the meaning of our own lives. This he sought out with wit, novelty, jauntiness, and an intellect that still inspires us today.
Around 404 B.C., the Thirty Tyrants, a pro-Spartan oligarchic party, won power in Athens. Due to their desire to remain in complete control, the Thirty sought to exile or kill anyone who outwardly opposed their regime. Socrates remained in the city through this period, which caused the public to perceive him as their ally. (Stone, 1979) As this glittering city started to suffer horribly–the economy crashed; population starved; the political landscape turned upside down, putting the ideology of democracy in question–suddenly the philosopher’s bright ideas, his unending questions, his eccentric ways, could no longer be tolerated.
When the Democratic Party resumed office a year or two later, the party set out to humble Socrates and instigated his indictment. (Stone, 1979) The first democratic court in the story of mankind summoned the 70-year-old philosopher on account that he “investigates the things below the earth in and the heavens, makes the weaker argument the stronger, and teaches these things to others” (p. 29, Plato). These charges go to show just how easily an ideal held dearly by his fellow Athenians—the ideal of free speech—could be set aside when they felt insecure. (Kraut, 2018) A confident society can ask questions of itself, but when it is fragile, it fears them.
127 our experts are availableright now
The trail was held by jury of 501 Athenian citizens with a majority vote controlling. (Young, 1988) Prosecution spoke first, then Socrates answered. Throughout the dialogue of the Apology, Socrates is stuck in the challenging position to reason with emotion against his fellow jury who also hold the unique position as his accusers, with years of resentment, prejudice, and generations of dislike against him. Socrates articulates on the great pities of human society, that it is not any crimes that will convict him, but rather gossip and whispers that will serve as a bases for his charges. It would require him to dispel rumors that “one must literally fight with shadows to defend oneself and cross-examine with no one to respond” (p 28, Plato)
He continues to address the prejudice in this show trial in his renown style of satire and cunningness knowing the whole time that his fate is already sealed. It is almost as if Socrates is mocking the timing of these trials since he has dealt with accusations his whole life, yet this will be the first time he will be on trial for any of them. His sarcastic attitude throughout the trial can easily be excused if we remind ourselves that he is fully knowledgeable and resentment of becoming a scapegoat. “As long as I draw breath and am able, I won’t give up practicing philosophy, exhorting you, and also showing the way” (44, Plato) He continues to do just that by bluntly stating “are you not ashamed that you take care to acquiring as much wealth as possible—but that of wisdom and truth, about how your soul may be in the best possible condition, you take neither care nor thought?” (45, Plato)
The jury unsurprisingly found Socrates guilty by a vote of 282-221 (Young 1989). The vote to convict Socrates was so close that if 30 of those who voted for conviction cast their ballots differently, he would have been acquitted. The trial now proceeded to the question of penalty. Prosecutors asked for the death sentence. Socrates, unphased by the decision, questions “what counter penalty should I now propose to you? I tried to persuade each of you to care first not about any of his possessions, but about himself and how he’ll become best and wisest…what, then, is appropriate for a poor man who is a public benefactor and need to have leisure to exhort you [and give moral encouragement]? Nothing could be more appropriate than for such man to be given free meals in the Prytaneum.” (p 53-54, Plato)
It is at this point that could he easily just comply and beg for this life, but he would rather speak his truth and continue in his jargon. To him, death cannot not be proven as the worst punishment imaginable for “no one knows whether death may not be the greatest good of all goods for people” (p 44, Plato) He continues on by mentioning the point of banishment. “now perhaps someone may say, “But by keeping quiet and minding your business, Socrates, wouldn’t it be possible for you to live in exile for us?” This is the hardest point on which to convince some of you. I say that to do that would be to disobey the god…the greatest good for a man to discuss virtue every day…on the grounds that the unexamined life isn’t worth living” (55, Plato) The Jury voted again, 316 to 141, the penalty was death. (Young 1988) Socrates accepted his fate and concludes, “now it is time to go, I to die and you to live. Which of us goes to the better thing, however, is unclear to everyone except the god.”
It was he who taught our world that rational questions have rational answers. It is he who showed that individuals striving for good is among the purpose of life. He demonstrated the morality of each man’s aspiration and so laid the groundwork for liberal democracy. The story of the Trial of Socrates teaches a double lesson around democracy that can be applied today. First, the power of Athens was manifested among the people themselves. They are the ones who heard the case, who voted; popular sovereignty could not go any further and shows democracy at its purest. On the other hand, the jury was untampered in its power. What it chose to do it was entitled to do because in the people themselves lay its legitimacy. (Young, 1988) There was no higher law to confine it, no opposing political party to question it; this is undoubtably democracy at its most dangerous.
Given restriction, liberty may have a chance. Socrates was a gadfly stinging Athens with vexing questions about truth, goodness, justice, and how a man ought to live his life. The people of Athens hated Socrates for his questions and for humiliating them. They had the power to kill him and they used it.
