J

Socrates’ Apology (Plato) - Comprehensive Notes

Context and Publication Details

  • Text: Apology by Plato, translated by Benjamin Jowett, as part of The Electronic Classics Series.
  • Setting: Socrates’ defense in Athens; public court proceedings following accusations by Meletus, Anytus, and Lycon.
  • Purpose of notes: Comprehensive summary of Socrates’ defense, his self-justifications, and his reflections on wisdom, virtue, death, and philosophy.
  • Key themes repeated throughout: the difference between truth and eloquence, the ‘unexamined life,’ the role of philosophy in public life, and the tension between personal integrity and popular opinion.

Opening speaker position and tone

  • Socrates addresses the Athenians and the judges with humility about his age and unfamiliarity with court procedure.
  • Acknowledges the power of the accusers’ rhetoric but asserts they have spoken mostly falsehoods.
  • He distinguishes between force of eloquence and force of truth; asserts he is not a juvenile orator and should be judged by truth, not by manner.
  • Requests that listeners not interrupt if he repeats familiar phrases from his usual speech, given his age and unfamiliarity with court norms.
  • Asks to be regarded as a foreigner in manner if needed, to avoid misinterpretation of his speech.
  • States the central aim: let justice decide the cause, while the judge decide the truth.

The two classes of accusations

  • Old accusers (ancient charges): Meletus and others who have long slandered Socrates, portraying him as irreverent of the gods and a corrupter of youth.
    • Charges include speculation about heaven and earth, making worse appear better, and teaching such doctrines to others.
    • Meletus’ charge: Meletus arrays a broad indictment that Socrates teaches new divinities and corrupts youth.
  • Recent accusers: Those who arose during recent times, including Meletus, Anytus, and Lycon, focused on his influence on youth and on divine matters.
    • You hear the newer accusation: Socrates is a doer of evil, corrupter of the youth, does not believe in the gods of the state, and introduces new divinities.

Socrates’ opening explanation of the old charges

  • He denies having been a teacher who charges for instruction; argues that if one can teach well, he would not despise being paid, but he does not teach for money.
  • Mentions Sophists (Gorgias, Prodicus, Hippias) who charge and travel; Socrates contrasts their paid teaching with his own mission.
  • Recounts a parable about Callias, Evenus the Parian; suggests honest teachers exist but charges against him remain ungrounded.
  • Claims the origin of his reputation as wise stems from the Delphic oracle’s statement that there is no one wiser than Socrates.
  • Explains his own response: sought someone wiser than himself to refute the oracle, tested several notable figures (a politician, poets, artisans); found that the reputedly wise were often not truly wise.
  • Concludes that God’s oracle is not about Socrates’ own wisdom but shows that human wisdom is limited; the divine sign indicates a mission to question those who think they know.
  • Asserts his role as a gadfly, in service to the god, awakening and provoking Athens to better self-knowledge; he claims poverty as proof of his dedication.
  • Describes the effects of his method: creates enemies, especially among the young and their elders, who resent his challenging questions.

The charge of corrupting the youth and atheism (Meletus’ cross-examination)

  • Socrates summarizes Meletus’ accusations: corrupting the youth, not believing in the city’s gods, introducing new deities.
  • He questions Meletus on who improves the youth; asks who benefits and who harms the young, using a logic akin to training horses.
  • Socrates points out the problem: if all others improve youth, how can he be the sole corrupter? The implication would be that every citizen improves others except Socrates.
  • He argues that if he corrupts youth unintentionally, the law should have warned him privately; the court indicts him in a public setting where instruction is not the goal.
  • Through a series of questions, Socrates demonstrates that Meletus cannot consistently claim that he, Socrates, is the sole corrupter while everyone else—laws, audience, senators, assembly—improves them.
  • He uses analogies to animals (horses) to illustrate that one trainer can improve or corrupt, but does not align with the broad claim that all others improve and he alone corrupts.
  • He accuses Meletus of carelessness and lack of genuine concern for the youth; he suggests Meletus lacks an actual plan to improve them.
  • Socrates emphasizes his own probing role: he examines all who claim to know, regardless of status, and if they lack wisdom, he exposes their ignorance.

The Meletus–Socrates dialogue on atheism and divine matters

  • Meletus asserts Socrates does not believe in the city’s gods but in new divinities; Socrates probes what this means: belief in divine or spiritual agencies, demigods, or gods.
  • He argues that if one believes in spiritual or divine agencies, it is inconsistent to deny gods or demigods; the indictment seems self-contradictory.
  • Socrates asks Meletus to define whether he means atheism or belief in different gods; Meletus’ answers imply that Socrates believes in demigods, which in turn would require belief in divine parents.
  • Socrates notes the logical absurdity of professing belief in demigods while denying gods altogether.
  • He asserts that the indictment is inconsistent and shows Meletus wrote it in youthful bravado rather than with serious intent.
  • He reiterates that his mission is to test the wisdom of those who claim it, not to deny gods; if misinterpreted, he still believes in gods and the divine sign he receives.

The “unexamined life” and the divine sign (oracle) as motivation

  • Socrates recounts the Delphic oracle’s proclamation of his being the wisest, which he sought to test by questioning others who were reputed to be wise.
  • He describes his journey to test various types of people (politicians, poets, artisans) to determine the truth of the oracle’s claim.
  • Across these tests, he finds that the most reputed are often the most ignorant; some are wiser than he, but most are not.
  • The oracle’s message leads him to a life of relentless questioning to pursue truth and virtue; he asserts that this mission absorbs most of his time and leaves him poor.
  • He argues that his method attracts enemies, especially from the younger generation who imitate his examination of supposed wisdom.
  • He claims his actions are not about private gain but about serving the God through a genuine philosophical inquiry.

The defense against the charge of corrupting the youth (Meletus) in detail

  • Socrates confronts Meletus directly about who improves the youth; asks if all laws, assembly members, and senators improve them, leaving Socrates as the sole corrupter.
  • He questions whether it is possible that one man could corrupt the youth while the rest of the city improves them; uses the horse-training analogy to highlight the inconsistency.
  • He argues that if youth are corrupted by his teaching, then the youth’ s elders (including Meletus) should be responsible for their corruption, not just him.
  • He clarifies that the charge of atheism includes belief in heavenly and divine beings; he challenges Meletus to specify what is meant by atheism and whether belief in demigods entails belief in gods.
  • Socrates points out that his interrogations and cross-examinations are an exercise of virtue and a duty commanded by the divine will; he asserts that he is not acting against the city but for its true improvement.
  • He emphasizes his poverty as a witness to his lack of material motive and asserts that he never taught anything private that others do not already know publicly.
  • He insists that he has no regular disciples and that those who attend his inquiries do so freely, not for pay; he does not exclude the possibility that others may benefit, but denies teaching anything specific in private that is unique to him.

The trial’s emotional and ethical core: the gadfly and the examined life

  • Socrates uses the metaphor of being a gadfly: a divine irritant sent to awaken the state from slumber; the state resembles a large but slow horse.
  • He argues that the city’s reform depends on philosophy and the examined life; the unexamined life is not worth living for a human being.
  • He downplays the idea that he was a harmful influence; if he is harming anyone, it would be by provoking the truth rather than by wrongdoing.
  • He points to his own past fidelity to the gods and his lack of material self-interest as proof that he has not acted with malice or corruption.
  • He notes that the accusers’ efforts are aimed at silencing a gadfly, not at genuine reform; he asserts that replacing him with silence would deprive the city of a necessary stimulus to virtue.

Socrates’ personal testimony about his conduct and philosophy

  • He details the few public offices he has held and contrasts this with his commitment to private inquiry and moral improvement.
  • He relates episodes from the democracy (trial of generals after Arginusae) and the Thirty Tyrants (Leon from Salamis) to illustrate his willingness to disobey unjust commands in order to uphold justice.
  • He asserts that he would not abandon his philosophical mission for any offer or power, even under imminent danger.
  • He asserts that he has never had regular disciples; instead, anyone may approach him freely for questions and answers, regardless of wealth or status.
  • He claims his life is an ongoing demonstration that questioning is a duty imposed by a divine will; he frames philosophy as education of the soul rather than the pursuit of public honors or wealth.
  • He argues that his inquiries into wisdom do not contradict belief in the gods; if he is not believed, this is not due to his teaching but to those who misinterpret his method.

The prosecution’s response and the verdict

  • The jury finds Socrates guilty. The verdict is presented with a mix of pity and contempt for his approach.
  • Socrates’ proposed sentence is not a punishment but a demonstration of his belief in virtue, his poverty, and his dedication to the city’s moral improvement.
  • He proposes that he should be rewarded with maintenance in the Prytaneum (a public stipend for those who have served the city well), arguing that he has given real and ongoing service by awakening citizens to virtue.
  • He argues that exile would be an absurd punishment for him at his age and would force him into perpetual wandering, which would not lead to further benefit for Athens.
  • He reasons that a financial penalty would not be possible given his lack of money; proposes a fine of thirty minae, with friends acting as sureties (Plato, Crito, Critobulus, and Apollodorus).
  • The jury condemns Socrates to death; the formal sentence is death by hemlock, in accordance with Athenian law.

Socrates’ reflections on death and the afterlife

  • He argues that death may be a good or a great good, depending on what it is: either a state of nothingness (a dreamless sleep) or a migration of the soul to another place.
  • If death is like sleep, it would be a gain because eternity would be like a single long night; if death leads to an afterlife, there would be opportunity to converse with great figures (Orpheus, Musaeus, Hesiod, Homer, Palamedes, Ajax, Odysseus, Sisyphus) and continue the search for true knowledge.
  • He believes that it is better to die pursuing the good than to live unwillingly or in dishonor; the greatest good is the pursuit of virtue and the improvement of the soul.
  • He reframes death not as a misfortune but as a potential boon if it allows continued inquiry or reunion with virtuous souls.
  • He asserts that no evil can happen to a good man either in life or after death; the gods do not neglect those who pursue virtue.
  • He prophesies to his judges that punishment heavier than death will await them for condemning him; he suggests future accusers will arise who will be more severe with them.

Final reflections and instruction to his listeners

  • He addresses those who would acquit him and those who would condemn him, urging them to pursue virtue over wealth, fame, or private interests.
  • He asks listeners not to imitate the spectacle of a theatrical defense; the right action is to pursue virtue, not to rely on emotional appeals or manipulation.
  • He asserts that if one kills him, the city loses a gadfly who challenges and awakens citizens toward virtue; he emphasizes the lasting value of philosophical inquiry beyond his own life.
  • He concludes with the oracle’s sign as his justification and with the reminder that the life of examination is the highest good; he ends by acknowledging his sons and requesting that they be guided toward virtue rather than wealth, should the city see fit to discipline them in the future.
  • Final sentence: The hour of departure has arrived; he goes to death, while the city continues to live and to judge their own actions. The ultimate question remains open: which is better—the life of a person devoted to virtue or the life of ease and security without inquiry?