Free Essays on In Socrates Defense…

of his accusers. To prove that he does believe in the gods, Socrates basically points out that believers in human activities must believe in human beings, therefore: he who believes in divine activities must believe in divine beings. He further states that since he is being accused of believing in divine activities, then he obviously believes in gods. Consequently, based on Meletus’ contradiction, I feel that the premises support Socrates’ plea of innocence. As for the strength of his argument, I believe that Socrates’ arrogance if anything, is his greatest fault. I also think that had he concentrated more on stating his case than on humiliating his opponents, the outcome may have been different. I say this because although one could have easily conceived of his innocence based on the facts alone, Socrates’ use of rhetoric may have worked against him. Everything considered, had Socrates’ had been more popular among those who stood in judgment of him, I would say that his arrogance would not have matter... Free Essays on In Socrates Defense†¦ Free Essays on In Socrates Defense†¦ In Socrates Defense†¦ The Apology, by Plato, is an account of the speech given by Socrates at the trial in which he is charged with corrupting the youth, not recognizing the Athenian gods, and believing in new deities. The issue that I will address in this paper is whether or not Socrates is guilty of worshipping new and different spiritual beings. Socrates’ takes the position that he is definitely ‘not guilty’ of being and atheist. The basis for his defense to this allegation can be found on lines 27b – 27e. According to the chief prosecutor, Meletus, Socrates is guilty of not believing in any gods at all. However, as Socrates points out, Meletus appears to contradict himself when he accuses Socrates of worshipping other gods and being an atheist as well. This is the reason I chose to address this issue. In essence, Socrates uses his usual rhetorical approach to skillfully detract from the words of his accusers. To prove that he does believe in the gods, Socrates basically points out that believers in human activities must believe in human beings, therefore: he who believes in divine activities must believe in divine beings. He further states that since he is being accused of believing in divine activities, then he obviously believes in gods. Consequently, based on Meletus’ contradiction, I feel that the premises support Socrates’ plea of innocence. As for the strength of his argument, I believe that Socrates’ arrogance if anything, is his greatest fault. I also think that had he concentrated more on stating his case than on humiliating his opponents, the outcome may have been different. I say this because although one could have easily conceived of his innocence based on the facts alone, Socrates’ use of rhetoric may have worked against him. Everything considered, had Socrates’ had been more popular among those who stood in judgment of him, I would say that his arrogance would not have matter...