Socrates
...stify his behavior using rhetorical techniques learned from Socrates. In response to his father questioning his actions he claims “Yes by God; what’s more, I’ll prove it’s right to do so…with unbeatable arguments.” He has obviously been extremely corrupted if he could talk in this manner to his father. Not believing in the traditional gods, which is the second charge fits the Aristophanic Socrates perfectly. Socrates explicitly frowns upon the gods when he exclaims, “what do you mean, ‘the gods’? In the first place, gods aren’t legal tender here” (lines 247-248). Later, when explaining the elements to Strepsiades, Socrates exclaims “Zeus you say? Don’t kid me! There’s no Zeus at all” (lines 368-369). He is undoubtedly saying that he does not believe in the traditional gods. The claim that Socrates believed in new divinities, the third charge, is clearly seen when he “enter (s) into communion with the clouds, who are our deities” (lines 253-254). Socrates proves methodically how it could not be Zeus who causes phenomena such as rain, thunder, and lightening, but rather is merely the work of the Clouds. For, if it were indeed the work of Zeus, then he would bring rain in absence of any clouds. The fact that the clouds are always present during precipitation attests to their power as opposed to that of Zeus. As the Clouds were not traditional gods, Socrates’ guilt on this charge is rather evident. Even as Socrates is presented as a blabbering fool, full of hubris, in the Clouds, an entirely different perspective on this alleged sophist is given to us in the Apology. Throughout Plato’s works including the Clouds, Socrates himself claims not to have any wisdom (he did not have any knowledge of ‘arete’) so he could not possibly have been a sophist. In terms of the charges he seems to absolve himself of the first two charges of corrupting the youth of Athens, and not believing in the traditional gods; though he is less convincing in his claim that he has no allegiance to other gods. Socrates claims he could not possibly be guilty of the first charge for several reasons. He feels the charge arises out of anger towards him for when he applies his “Socratic method” while questioning others’ beliefs, it often has the effect of leaving them feeling embarrassed and ridiculed. However, Socrates maintains that his objective is merely to ascertain the ultimate truths, a noble act for sure. In fact, Socrates believes that the pursuit of truth is the most important work of man. Besides, the youth following is not as a result of recruitment but rather “of their own free will” (23cl-2). And on the actual charge of corrupting the youth, when prodded by him to give an example of these acts, none is forthcoming. They present it in a general sense lacking any specific incidence. Furthermore, it is illogical for one to willingly corrupt one’s companions, for “if I make one of my associates wicked I run the risk of being harmed by him so that I do such a great evil deliberately, as you say?” (25e 3-5). Socrates further argues that if he truly did corrupt the youth, it may explain why his “students” did not accuse him of such, but it wouldn’t account for the absence of inquiry from their distraught families. If those closely involved have not shown any concern, this is further evidence of his innocence (33 d1-34 e3). Perhaps, most telling is that Socrates was willing to sacrifice his life for his convictions instead of pleading for clemency by detracting from his views. This shows the high character of Socrates who holds steadfast to his beliefs under even the...