Socrates In The Apology Analysis

In the Apology Socrates is accused of being an atheist and corrupting the youth by Meletus, and other people who Socrates “tested their wisdom”. They are strongly offended by Socrates’ words, and decided to bring Socrates to this trial to get him punished. Socrates has defended himself, and he is not guilty of any accuses. However, the jurors, on behalf of the whole citizen body of Athens, decide that Socrates is guilty, and the punishment is a death penalty rather than an exile. Behind this death penalty, Socrates seems to prefer this than an exile, because he does not want to live in a society that he cannot do what he wants to do. Then, in the Crito, Socrates refuses to be rescued by Crito and Socrates’ friends. Crito tried to convince Socrates by saying that he and other friends of Socrates are going to be accused as a bad friend that does not help Socrates, and Socrates could continue on his mission in testing the wisdom of others if he decides to escape. However, Socrates decides to not escape. He decides to stay and receive the death penalty, because he wants to obey the law. Looking back during the thirty tyrants era, Socrates disobeyed an order from the tyrants, which means that Socrates has once disobeyed before. Therefore, it might seem doubtful for some people that Socrates to decide to not want to disobey the law now. I think it is entirely justified for Socrates to disobey the order from the tyrants, and to acceptably obey with the result of the trial. Socrates thinks that he should act in such a way, because his trial is held democratically, escaping is an act of disobeying the laws, which Socrates holds himself accountable for, and receiving the death penalty will make people more curious about this whole case. During Socrates’ trial, all the jurors are the rightful representatives of people of Athens. The trial is hold in a proper way without any manipulation, and Socrates has defended himself from any accuse that the accusers …show more content…
I think Socrates wants the death penalty with the main reason being that an imprisonment or an exile will put him into a position that he cannot continue his mission, as he says, “if I say that it is the greatest food for a man to discuss virtue every day and those other things about which you hear me conversing and testing myself and others, for the unexamined life is not worth living for men, you will believe me even less” (Apology, 38a). I also think that there is another reason, receiving death penalty will create a curiosity for next generation to discuss about his death. The most important evidence about this argument is the fact that we are arguing about his death penalty. If Socrates were to choose an exile, the story would have been totally different. It is also interesting to look back at the Allegory of the Cave by Plato about the killing of the “enlightened” man. Socrates thinks that the people who control the prisoners in the cave would kill the “enlightened” man because it would stop the whole idea, however, it certainly will not. Nothing can stop the truth, and killing the man would make other people more curious about what he has done. Comparing to Socrates receiving death penalty, I think these two stories share a similar concept of how to provoke people passive-aggressively to be more curious