The animals
...nd the Presocratic philosophers. Teachers from these two groups both claimed that through experience, inspiration, or investigation, they had gained access to special knowledge that could be taught. Socrates, on the other hand, never makes any particular claims to knowledge, and his inquiries tend to show the ignorance of his interlocutors rather than his own expertise. Socrates, then, has no particular knowledge, as such, to teach at all, but has instead a peculiar kind of wisdom that will be clarified in the sections following. The oracle of Apollo at Delphi was the most famous and revered oracle of the ancient world. That Socrates’ friend Chaerephon did in fact visit the oracle is confirmed by Xenophon, though in his account the oracle declared Socrates to be “the most free, upright, and prudent of all people” (Xenophon, Socrates’ Defense) rather than the most wise. In either case, it is clear that the oracle made a positive claim about Socrates. Most of Plato’s early dialogues—those that center more on Socrates’ thought than on Plato’s own—are concerned with ethical questions, and so we can perhaps reconcile Xenophon’s and Plato’s accounts by saying that Socrates’ wisdom is a kind of ethical wisdom, one that would make him supremely free, upright, and prudent. However, the Delphic oracle sided primarily with Sparta during the Peloponnesian War, so it is doubtful whether an Athenian jury would trust or appreciate the evidence given by the oracle. Also of relevance is the famous motto inscribed above the entrance to the oracle at Delphi: “Know thyself.” Socrates is an ardent advocate of self-knowledge, and his investigations can be seen as an attempt to come to a better understanding of his own nature. He is famous for claiming that no one could ever knowingly and willingly do evil, that evil is a result of ignorance and deficient self-knowledge. His investigations generally ask such questions as what it is to be virtuous, or pious, or just. In his dogged efforts to understand these terms himself, and his persistence in showing his interlocutors to be wrong in assuming they have such understanding, Socrates reveals himself as a man intent on gaining the self-knowledge necessary to lead a virtuous life. Socrates questions Meletus, asking him who has a good influence on the young. Meletus replies that the laws influence youth positively. Socrates counters that he would like Meletus to name specific people, rather than things, who have had good influence. Socrates further prods Meletus to specify those people whose business it is to know the laws and who have this positive impact. Meletus offers jurymen, benefactors, members of the council, and assemblymen as examples. As any adult male may take part in the assembly, it follows that essentially every Athenian has a positive influence on the young. At this point, Socrates marvels that he himself, of all Athenians, should be singled out as a sole corrupter of youth. He draws an analogy to horses and horse training, meant to imply that only a few specialists improve children, while most people have merely a neutral impact on them—just as with horses. Meletus accuses Socrates of intentionally harming his fellow citizens, to which Socrates replies that he himself suffers from wickedness directed toward others, for he shares society with these people. As such, he has no desire intentionally to wrong them, so either he has not done so or has done so only unknowingly. Moreover, if the latter is the case, Socrates deserves not punishment but instruction. Meletus asserts that Socrates teaches the young to believe in gods of his own invention and that Socrates himself does not believe in any gods at all. Socrates mocks this line of attack, pointing out that in order to discuss the activity of any entity, such as a horse, a man, or a piece of music, one must believe in the existence of the thing in question—horses, human beings, or music. By this token, as Socrates speaks of supernatural activities, he must believe in supernatural beings. Because all supernatural beings are gods or their children, Meletus’s charge that Socrates does not believe in any gods amounts to a false one. Next, Socrates reflects aloud that some might wonder whether he feels ashamed to have chosen a way of life that increases his risk of death. He quickly justifies his decision by stating that only considerations of right and wrong, not of physical safety, matter in choosing an action. In addition, Socrates believes that abandoning philosophy in the face of death amounts to disobeying the divine command of Apollo himself. He also argues that fear of death equates to false knowledge of matters that remain beyond human accessibility. These words echo Socrates’ claims to a special wisdom of ignorance. In light of these considerations, Socrates explains that nothing will stop him from performing his divinely ordained duty to show fellow humans their ignorance—even a penalty of death. Furthermore, Socrates maintains that the members of the jury, in ordering his execution, do more harm to themselves than to him. It is far worse to commit a wrong act, such as the killing of an innocent man, than it is to remain good and suffer from the wrongdoing of others. Socrates believes that dying innocently at the hands of his jury is far more just than wrongly sentencing someone else to death. He likens himself to a fly stinging a sleeping horse (Athens) into action. He predicts that he will be missed after his death and that he eventually will be recognized as the catalyst for an Athenian awakening. Finally, Socrates attributes his persistent teachings to a supernatural voice that guides him. He justifies his solitary life as necessary to one who opposes the impure politics of society, and he refers to multiple civic occasions on which he has demonstrated virtue in the face of adversity. Socrates claims that he owes his survival in the face of opposition entirely to this divine voice. He reiterates his commitment to justice and obedience of the gods, mentions several men present—including Plato—who could attest to his virtue, and concludes that Meletus’s charges must be false. Analysis Socrates’ words embody the essence of his lifelong intellectual outlook, making the Apology a masterful biographical portrait. The strongest example of this portraiture comes when Socrates declares that a man “has only one thing to consider in performing any action; that is, whether he is acting rightly or wrongly, like a good man or a bad one.” Socrates uses this claim to justify his own decision to continue teaching regardless of the enemies this practice earns him. Though Socrates’ choice puts him at risk of death, its virtuousness is the only important factor in his reflection. His belief in the importance of righteousness over all other factors stems from his conceptions of virtue, wisdom, the soul, and its afterlife—the major points of focus of his intellectual inquiry. By integrating these key tenets of Socrates’ philosophy into the account of his self-defense, Plato highlights his mentor’s essential philosophical doctrines for the historical record. The different strands of history, biography, and philosophy that run through this dialogue are woven together when Socrates mentions Plato’s presence at the trial. This reference emphasizes Plato’s role as creator of the Apology and represents an attempt on Plato’s part to lend himself credibility as a firsthand witness to the proceedings he recounts. We are meant to trust Plato’s words more because he is actually present when Socrates speaks them. Whether or not we accept Plato’s account as unbiased, it is one of the only thorough sources of information regarding the events surrounding Socrates’ death. More important, though, only Plato possesses the philosophical, personal, and historical access to Socrates necessary for a portrayal as robust as he gives us in these dialogues. Socrates’ predictions regarding the impact of his death upon Athenian society contrast with his other words throughout the Apology. These statements reflect Plato’s desire to register the nature and impact of Socrates’ death—Plato’s explicit purpose in creating these dialogues. At the same time, it is debatable whether Socrates was correct in his prediction that he would awaken Athens. Socrates seems to contradict himself somewhat, stating both that he cannot be replaced and that other critics soon will replace him. As such, the dialogue does not render his meaning entirely clear. Furthermore, accepting the idea that Socrates suffers less harm than his executioners requires that we accept his philosophy. If we deny this belief in virtue before death, we may also deny that Socrates’ jurors suffer the greater evil for killing him than he does by dying unjustly at their hands. After completing his defense, Socrates admits his concern that the jurors will sentence him to a more severe punishment in light of his refusal to beg for their mercy. He mentions his own children, emphasizing that he has no desire to bring them before the court in a bid for pity or to beg for his acquittal. Socrates feels that such actions would defy the reputation and principles he has established throughout the course of his lifetime. He has no desire to disgrace himself or his city, as he believes no self-respecting virtuous individual like himself would. Socrates takes this position because unrighteousness brings with it the risk of eternal condemnation. Moreover, in attempting to convince the jury, he wishes to rely only upon his arguments rather than desperate pleas for clemency. Socrates maintains that the court itself, in the interests of justice and piety, should desire he not behave in such an immoral manner. For these reasons, Socrates declares himself to be more sincere and interested in the truth than are his accusers. Upon learning of the jurors’ guilty verdict, Socrates is not surprised at the outcome—in fact, he seems surprised only by the vote’s narrow margin. Though he feels he has revealed his own innocence regardless of the court’s decision, he also concedes that he must address Meletus’s request for the death penalty. In fact, Socrates must suggest what he himself believes to be a reasonable punishment. Socrates mentions the service he has performed for his fellow citizens: attempting to persuade them individually to focus on spiritual rather than practical well-being. As the verdict against him stems from his attempts to accomplish this magnanimous goal, he feels that a life supported by the state would be the most appropriate “punishment” for him. To support this proposal, Socrates adds that never in his life has he deliberately wronged another person, whether or not his jurors believe such a claim. He flatly refuses punishments of fines and exile, asserting that he will not cling to life so desperately as to compromise his principles with such plea-bargaining. Furthermore,...