Plato: Apology - Example philosophy analysis paper

Plato's Apology features the dramatic trial of Socrates, in which the elder philosopher must defend himself against his accusers. This sample literary analysis paper focuses on how Socrates defends himself by pointing out the illogical arguments of his opponents. This example philosophy essay concludes with a note on the injustice of Socrates trial, as the philosopher's successful defense cannot trump politics. It would be a good reference for a college student just learning about philosophy.

Defendant's Crime, Accuser's Punishment

Socrates stands accused. Though a man of seventy, he is thought guilty of a crime. The charge: impiety and corrupting the young. As Plato's Apology begins, Socrates is on trial, facing both his accusers and a jury of Greek citizens. Meletus, Anytus, and Lycon, Socrates' three accusers, have presented their arguments, leaving it for the man accused to defend himself, a man who, over time, has made himself greatly unpopular amongst those he faces, those whose wisdom and intelligence he has publicly refuted. This unpopularity, though, appears not to bother him. When presenting his counterargument, he seems less concerned with proving himself inno-cent outright than with exposing the logical fallacies and contradictions in the arguments of his accusers, thus discrediting them in order to clear himself. If the accusations are unfounded and illogical, Socrates reasons, then there is no reason to stand trial. He therefore addresses Meletus as if a witness and methodically eradicates the foundations of the man's arguments, forcing Me-letus to contradict himself in several instances. In this way, by outthinking his accusers, Socrates seeks to invalidate the accusations against him, and his denunciation of Meletus' claims-that Socrates corrupts the young and does not believe in the gods-form the backbone of his argument.

Following his opening statement, which includes a denial of the charges as a whole, Socrates approaches the first of the accusations against him-that he is corrupting the youth of Athens-and it is here that he addresses Meletus. Socrates' first salvo of questions, while asking only for clarification of the charges against him, leads to Meletus' confirmation that "all the Athe-nians…make the young into fine good men, except [Socrates], and [he] alone corrupt[s] them" (25a). Taking full advantage, Socrates is quick to reveal this statement's absurdity. He points out that in general, it is in fact the many that cause corruption and the few who cause improvement. Take, for instance, the following example. A public restroom is in the care of a janitorial staff, a small group of individuals whose job is to keep it clean, functional, and in decent repair. It is everyone else, the many, who take it upon themselves to defecate and destroy what is diligently maintained. A day where one man corrupted the youth and all others improved them, Socrates says, would be a great day indeed. From this, he moves on to his second point, pausing frequent-ly in order to confirm that Meletus is in full accord with what he says, and so determines that Meletus accuses Socrates of "corrupting the young…deliberately" (25d) while agreeing both that "the wicked do some harm to those who are ever closest to them" (25c) and that no man wants to be harmed. Reasoning logically from these statements, Socrates exposes another flaw in the charges against him-by willingly corrupting those around him, he risks being harmed, and if no man wants to be harmed, then it does not follow that he would place himself at such a risk. Doing so would be akin to poisoning the air around oneself-there is no sense in it. As a result, only two logical conclusions present themselves: Socrates either does not corrupt the young, or he does so unwillingly-both of which are contrary to Meletus' accusations. Having thus suffi-ciently proved the falsehood of this particular charge, at least in his own opinion, Socrates proceeds to the next: that of impiety.

Once again, Socrates seeks to refute Meletus' claims based on contradictions in the charges themselves. First the accusation: "Socrates is guilty of…not believing in the gods in whom the city believes, but in other new spiritual things" (24b). As worded here, no logical fallacies seem apparent, but Socrates makes short work of the statement, exposing Meletus' inconsistencies to the bright of day as the interrogation continues. "Does any man believe in spiritual activities," he asks, "who does not believe in spirits?" (27b), and Meletus answers, however reluctantly, that there is no one. Having been proven wrong once already, Meletus has become wary, possibly convinced that he has made some other error that Socrates is about to exploit. Likely indignant as well after being insulted by Socrates and humiliated by his logic, he seems, with good reason, almost unwilling to cooperate. The truth, however, cannot be denied. Just as a person who be-lieves that cows give milk must also believe that cows exist, a person who believes in spiritual activities, such as Socrates, must also believe that spirits exist. Furthermore, in response to yet another question from Socrates, Meletus confirms that spirits are believed to be "either gods or the children of gods" (27c). It follows, therefore, that a person who believes in spirits, as Socrates does, must also believe in gods. Interestingly though, Socrates does not actually deny in itself the accusation that he does not believe in the gods, but proves instead such an accusation is un-founded. If there is no logical basis for an accusation and no evidence that a crime has been committed, then no one should be charged, much less found guilty. This is the argument that So-crates hope will clear him.

To his great misfortune, however, Socrates is found guilty and sentenced to death, and though convicted legally of Meletus', Anytus', and Lycon's accusations, they were not likely what condemned him. As he said towards the beginning of his rebuttal, if he were to be found guilty, it would be of being unpopular, of being disliked by those who judged him. Truth and innocence were not important-so much for blind justice, and so much for an impartial jury.

Works Cited