A wise man’s death
I have to say that I was astonished when I read the Apology. How could Socrates, a person famous for his wisdom, be found guilty for these ridiculous charges in a state well-known for its democracy? But a truth cannot be denied is that Socrates gives his live for this unfair trial.
As the Apology says, Socrates has two kinds of accusers, the old ones and the present ones. His first accusers accused him for “engaging in inquiries into things beneath the earth and in the heavens” (Plato, 23), of making the weaker arguments appear the stronger and of teaching others for the same things (23). And his present accusers impeach him of corrupting the young, and of not believing in the gods whom the state believed in, but in new divinities (29).However, in my mind, all these charges are illegitimate.
For Socrates’ first accusers, who hold of most of the people when they were children and indicted Socrates for never believed in the gods (22), are doing so because of the Socrates’ wisdom. After Chaerephon asked the oracle which said that no one was wiser than Socrates (25), Socrates began to investigate at god’s command. He cross-examined others whom are reputed to be wise, and from this examination, indignation and prejudices arose. These people who didn’t admit their ignorance had been accusing him for many years.
And for his present accusers, Meletus, Anytus and Lycon, their charges are illegitimate, too. Firstly, has Socrates corrupted the young voluntarily? If he has, he must make his companions evil, and then these bad citizens would do harm to himself. But no one likes to be injured, so does Socrates. So he couldn’t corrupt the young voluntarily or he hasn’t corrupted them at all. (31) Secondly, Meletus says that Socrates doesn’t believe in the gods in any way by teaching” the sun is a stone and the moon is earth”. However, these words are from others’ works and everyone could buy these works from the theater (32). And this is also contradicted to the charge that Socrates believes in new divinities (33). Otherwise, Socrates never teaches anyone knowledge, instead he teaches people critical thinking. How could he corrupt the young by leading them to think themselves (40)?
Overall, I have to say these charges are all absurd and illegitimate. And the trial is unfair, too. On one hand, the process of the trial isn't just enough. Socrates cannot let everyone who accuses him to spar with him in court, and if he put questions, no one could answer (23). This is quite different from the pattern of modern Litigation. As we all know, if the prosecutor doesn’t go to the court, at least his agents ad litem will come to speak to the court. And on the other hand, the jury is unjust, too. As I have mentioned above, Socrates’ first accusers got hold of most of the people when they were children. This prejudice has rooted deeply in their mind and I don’t think it can be changed immediately. Besides, distinguish from the way of modern legal system to choose the members of the jury, in ancient Athens, there is no need for the members have the ability to read and write. That means the vote may be falsified by others. And what's more, the law is unjust. To finish a trial of life and death in a single day is so careless. The time is not enough for Socrates to clear himself of great prejudice. Generally, today, a party has the right to appeal any judgment to at least one higher court. But for Socrates, in ancient Athens, he does not have the chance, and have to accept the adjustment. So, even though Socrates has the chance to defend for himself, the trial is still unfair.
Work Cited
Plato. Euthyphro, Apology, Crito. Upper Sadder River: Prentice Hall, 1948
No comments:
Post a Comment