The Apology by Plato:

A Modern Jurors Judgement

Luke Anderson
4275803
COMM 1133
Professor Lewis Silvestri

Great Speakers, like politicians, have a natural and practiced ability in spoken
word and argumentative thinking. Though Socrates was no politician, he
undoubtedly had finely honed skills in this regard. These skills are evident in his trial
where he attempted to convince a jury of 251 citizens of his innocence. Had I have
been one of these jurors my verdict would have been guilty for a few reasons. He
did not prove his innocence in regards to two of the three main charges against him;
that he was a teacher and that he was corrupting the minds of the youth. He also
used his task from the gods as a defence for his actions although it was in no way
a directly appointed task to complete. For these reasons, though his actions may
have been noble in thought, they were not necessarily just in practice.
For a man like Socrates language is like clay to an artist, easy to bend and
mold into great masterpieces. His clever and seemingly convincing words may
sound sincere and honest, however, he twists them in such a way that misdirects us
from the real truth. This can be seen when Socrates argues that he is not in fact a
teacher. He states if you have heard anyone say that I try to educate people and
charge a fee there is no truth in that (19e). This is undoubtedly true as it was well
known that Socrates was a poor man so he most likely never charged a fee. But for
a man as wise as Socrates he must understand that we as human beings are
constantly learning from both our experiences and our observations. As a man who

claims to be conscious of [his] ignorance (21d), he must (in some way)

understand the subtle ways in which we as human beings are influenced. Therefore
he must understand how he educated people without having to charge a fee. He
also states later on that the youth often take me as their model, and go on to try to
question other persons (23c). This begs the question that if you claim not to teach,
yet you see others taking after you, where do you suppose they have gained the
knowledge to do so? In this way Socrates has lost his first argument and is guilty of
the charge of teaching.
Corruption is when something is changed from its original meaning to one
that is erroneous or debased. Though Socrates never corrupted the youth through
malice or ill intent, he did corrupt the meaning of wisdom in the minds of the youth.
He did this by humiliating authority figures and men who society deemed as being
wise. In regards to the charge against him, Socrates asks Meletus do you mean
that I do so intentionally or unintentionally? (25d) and Meletus responds with
intentionally. Though Socrates argues that it was unintentional, I believe he did in
fact intentionally corrupt them. He corrupted the perception of wisdom and the
meaning that it had always held over the youth, who once saw these authority
figures as wise. In altering the connotation of wisdom, Socrates nullifies the idea
of authority. This type of corruption can be seen in followers Socrates did not
mention such as Critias, who fought his way to power and overthrew the democratic
state he had grown up in. Had he not followed Socrates, his view of the leadership
may not have been so strong and many lives could have been saved (had he still
believed that these figures were wise enough to hold such authority). In this way
Socrates did in fact corrupt the youth and is guilty of the second charge against
him.

Finally, comes Socrates largest defence for his actions; his task from the
gods. This task, however noble, was not given to him by the gods. The word of the
gods was merely a statement about him being the wisest man. There was no
appointment given, however he could not help but wonder as to the reason for it
having been said. As Socrates says, I set myself at last with considerable
reluctance to check the truth of it (21b). It was only his interpretation of the word
of the gods that set him on his mission. He also says I realised with distress and
alarm that I was making myself unpopular, but I felt compelled to put the gods
business first (21c). This shows Socrates true agenda such that though he was
getting a bad reputation, he enjoyed embarrassing people and showing a crowd a
good show. Since debates were common place in his time it makes sense that his
comical embarrassments of powerful or highly viewed citizens helped to build a
following. The attention of putting on these spectacles was likely enjoyable for
Socrates elsewise he would have stopped when he was becoming unpopular in the
eyes of the authority figures, especially since his mission was self-appointed.
Therefore he cannot defend himself by saying his mission was divine. It was simply
a choice he made for himself and so he must face the consequences of making such
a bold decision.
As great a speaker as Socrates is, he clearly did not defend himself well in
regards to being charged with teaching and corrupting the youth. He also based his
defence off of a personal choice, not one that was given to him by the gods. For
these reasons, had I have been a juror at his trial, I would have found Socrates to be
guilty of two of the three charges. His attempts to outsmart the jury were futile and
the combined wisdom of the jury seems to have been greater than his own. His
conviction comes as no surprise but his punishment does not fit the crime.