The Apology

NOTE: *These are expository comments on a philosophical text as opposed to a definition or conceptual analysis.*

furthermore, these notes are not proofread and as such contain a number of errors.

## The Apology by Plato

**Trans. G.M.A. Grube**

The Apology is a cornerstone of Western Philosophy. This is Plato's presumably second-hand recounting of the trial of Socrates where he's been accused of Impiety and corrupting the youth. The value of this recollection is hard to overstate considering the impact it's had on thinkers worldwide for thousands of years. The brilliant way Socrates defends himself and his reaction to the conviction are insightful and compelling making this dialogue an ideal read for anyone interested in early philosophical reasoning.

You may wonder if it was a brilliant defense, how is it that he still lost the case? Well, that he is convicted is certainly a major point of the dialogue. It'd be foolish to reduce the value of his defense to the fact that he's found guilty however. Plato's reasons for writing it and the material conditions underlying the story lead to some incredibly useful ideas.

Perhaps there's a pattern? If a thinker has a better grasp of something or some insight undermining than the currently established order then the thinker risks exile or elimination. Maybe this is because people tend to overestimate their own opinions or feel just in supporting the majority view no matter how corrupt. Is it possible he wasn't entirely innocent? Would it be controversial to suggest Socrates wanted to take the hemlock?

It's believable that he was probably misjudged and mistreated in spite of his insight and wisdom like many other brilliant minds. Having said that, even Socrates has trouble with the idea of his innocence so much as his lack of guilt. In the end he seems to wonder if being guilty is ultimately all that bad.

I can appreciate the idea of a skeptical or even nihilistic approach to the story, although the Hemlock bit doesn't happen until the events of the Crito and Phaedo. Another great thinker, Nietzsche, supposed Socrates found his death a blessing and longed for sweet release after realizing a long and full life of suffering. In Twilight of the Idols from The Problem of Socrates section he claims the master of Plato looked forward to death. I read this as an intentional attempt to challenge other more traditional or optimistic readings of the death of Socrates and not necessarily saying that one way or the other demonstrates a more meaningful message.

-- The apology is merely a stage for Socrates to show off his opposition to conventional sophism. Also much of Greek thinking rode on the stability and wealth that promoted bourgeois armchair contemplation.

The historical context is essential.

I probably wouldn't go so far as claiming it's merely an oppositional demonstration of Socratic wisdom versus conventional sophistry, but there's no question it's in play and a major focus of Plato's work in general.

I think I probably agree with the rest of your remarks except that I don't see his position as necessarily non-constructive or anarchistic outside of being hyperbolic perhaps. You're spot on with the state of Athenian decadence and corruption though, which Plato takes time to highlight through many of his dialogues.

It's from this historical perspective I'm reminded that Socrates is fairly mythologized and largely reducible to a Platonic caricature given that we know little else about him. He's referenced briefly in a couple other accounts from the time, one of which confirms some key historical events from the time of his trial but that's about it. Otherwise all we have are off hand remarks or people talking trash like Aristophanes in The Clouds.

It seems like an important detail people often overlook by accident anyways.

I'm using the lines from the Grube translation which should correspond to most standard line numbers. From 17a to around 19b Socrates is reviewing his case before the jury and introducing himself. In the Euthyphro which takes place just before his trial, it's explained at line 2c that he's being charged with corrupting the youth and creating false gods by a younger man called Meletus.

In his opening remarks he basically claims he's being set up over rumors based on personal grudges. Socrates asks that the jury be understanding while he presents the case in his usual fashion so they can see the honest truth. It's further clarified he feels this situation has been in the works for quite some time from a variety of different instigators including an offhanded reference to Aristophanes the comedic playwright among others.

From 19b to 20c he goes over the details of the initial claim that he corrupts the young men of Athens. As he puts it, the original slander was based on the sort of nonsense Aristophanes and his ilk wrote about him. Adding to this he says he'd be glad to have knowledge such as these other supposedly great teachers of the time but the fact is he possessed little or no insight of that variety.

At 20c Socrates goes on to elaborate where all the trouble started and how it relates to the sort of insight he may indeed posses. He argues the difference is his own wisdom is very human, ostensibly rather practical and limited, whereas the wisdom of a sophist seems something more than human to him. The Oracle at Delphi bore witness to his childhood friend Chairephon, Socrates says "He went to Delphi at one time and ventured to ask the oracle—as I say, gentlemen, do not create a disturbance—he asked if any man was wiser than I, and the Pythian replied that no one was wiser."

There's a lot going on in the details of the piece already that make for great discussion points, but also I really like the idea all of this is being presented to an audience of 500-ish Athenean citizens which was the customary jury size at the time. Socrates knew many of these folks really well and there's some speculation some of Plato's family was likely in attendance. It feels like there's a lot of background tension we're meant to assume regardless of how much insight we have into the concrete facts simply based on the portrayal of events, but knowing more still seems to increase the excitement. :P

Obviously I'm leaving a lot out, but these are highlight notes.

So, that many powerful Athenian citizens found the man politically threatening seems quite likely, I agree. I tend to be cautious with what claims I'll commit myself, to but it also makes sense that the Socratic message was rather untimely and that Athens was indeed in a state of decline. In fact, I too am inclined to side with speculating his trial was the result of powerful people finding him inconvenient and worrisome.

I can see a few ways of relating this dialogue with the problem of evil as well, but not in too many ways that strongly correlate. Obviously there's a decidedly moral dimension to this wherein Plato implies either some evil or some wrongdoing at play and there's certainly a meta-context inferring elements of decaying ethics.

Picking up from line 21b going through 22c, Socrates explains the extreme conditions of his Oracular pronouncement. He wonders "Whatever does the god mean? What is his riddle? I am very conscious that I am not wise at all; what then does he mean by saying that I am the wisest?"

Socrates continues attempting to discover the secret of the Delphic prophecy. He says he visited with men who were thought to be wise thinking he could learn the answer by examining those who posses legitimate wisdom and insight. These efforts proved disappointing when Socrates found none of them appeared to have any more perspective than he did. Following his failure to establish any mortal claims to wisdom he determines either the Oracle was straightforwardly correct in claiming that Socrates is the most wise, or that in the end the point simply meant no one is actually wise at all.

This whole interrogation process didn't win him many friends incidentally. Indeed Socrates found as he investigated more it turned out the most well respected were often the least gifted and really nobody failed to dissatisfy. He claims to have questioned all the politicians and poets first, finding the latter to have a slight advantage due to something like a connection to the divine providing inspiration and purpose. Otherwise neither seemed to honestly understand much of anything. At line 22d he goes on to interview the craft-masters.

He finds within the crafters wisdom from each respective trade which he does not possess, yet he's troubled because they don't seem to understand the proper context for such insight. Because they assume this knowledge also means they're wise in other matters, crafts-folk undermine the advantage of their applied understanding and thus end up with a sort of deficit of wisdom from the misunderstanding.

All right, for the sake of brevity I'll run through the rest more concisely according to a fairly traditional reading and discuss alternatives later.

From 23a to 24a He wraps up his recounting of having tested damn near all the men of Athens capable of being questioned and concludes the Oracle must have meant really nobody knows what they're talking about since he'd come up with essentially nothing. The jury must've been hearing rumors about him for a reasonably long time because of how unpopular his opinions and activities have been, especially among the nobler citizens.

At 24b Socrates claims more than having been falsely accused by Meletus and others, the case is also infers they've been dealing frivolously with serious matters and have irresponsibly brought everyone to court for doings they really have no interest in. He does so by asking Meletus who improves the youth since he the accused corrupts them. After a series of probes it becomes clear the aim is to blame Socrates personally and not because of anything anyone else could be blamed for.

Then he asks him if everyone improves the young: what about the people who do them real good, like a stable master might be expected to be the best person for the training of horses? With the assumption that Meletus is unable to answer Socrates restates his accuser obviously hasn't given this much thought.

At 25e He argues it makes no sense that he'd willingly corrupt his friends when encouraging such wickedness would put him in harm's way. If indeed he is guilty his participation would've been unwilling which basically just makes his accuser guilty for bringing him up on charges instead of helping him out with assistance and good advice like any decent neighbor should.

So far this covers about half the dialogue.

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/apology.html

There's a link to the Jowett translation. There are a few others in English I like a little better, but this one here will do the job. I honestly prefer the Grube translation which is what Hackett uses. Here's a link to a PDF version:

http://www2.hawaii.edu/~freeman/courses/phil100/04.%20Apology.pdf

There's also the Lamb translation over at the Perseus Archive but it's my least favorite of these three.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3atext%3a1999.01.0170%3atext%3dApol.