How many of you just read my introductions and never actually read the essays? Asses. Maybe I'll just stop writing these all together, what would you think about that? Anyway, I'm giving to you tonight my thoughts on Plato's Apolgy and Crito. Philosophers worldwide call them "THE Apolgy" and"THE Crito." I happen to think that's shit, as that's not what Plato wrote. Where do they get off doing this you ask, well, they think since most of the dialogues are named after characters, it's just easier that way. Have you ever gotten the character Tom Sawyor confused with the novel's title being abbreviated "Tom Sawyor?" No, of course not, but I digress...here's the paper already:

Tom Acton
Philosophy 300, Ancient Philosophy
Dr. Davenport
5 February 2001

      Socrates makes two basic arguments as he argues for his innocence, the first of which may have come across with a certain about of cockiness, that he was simply doing as the gods wished him to do, as the wisest of all men. The oracle at Delphi had previously made the claim that no one was wiser than Socrates, and ever since having heard of this, Socrates had made it his mission to find someone wiser, as he did not believe he could possibly be at the top. It was this mission that got him into trouble to begin with.

      Socrates would wander around the city, seeking out those that were seen as being wise in their specific facet of life, be it politics, poetry, or even woodworking. He would sit down, have a nice little chat with them, and usually leave them upset and angry towards him, as he would have proved that though they saw themselves as wise, they were in fact not. All the while, however, he most humbly claimed to know nothing. He openly admitted that he was not wise, and it was most likely this humbleness that burned those he had embarrassed the most. Who wants to hear that the man who just proved himself to be much smarter than you, in fact claims to know nothing? As he conversed with more and more people, collecting an amount of followers that just wanted to hear him question the wise, he acquired more and more enemies. Later that would come back to hurt him, as he had most probably angered a fair amount of his jurors by the time of his trial. He would conclude that the meaning behind the oracle's statement was that because Socrates realized that as a man, he knew relatively nothing, he was the wisest, in that, if you are nothing but a mere man and you believe yourself to be wise, you are horribly mistaken in the face of the all-knowing Gods.

      The other point that Socrates made in his defense was that by going around questioning various people, just being a philosopher in general, he was performing a public service. How else could society advance if not through philosophy, he would say. He claimed to have never invented anything spiritual, in fact claiming that because he believes himself to live in a world filled with the creations of spirits, he obviously believes in the traditional set of gods. He was simply exploring the world in search of wisdom, the likes of which would improve the entire city, without ever crossing any blasphemous boundaries.

      Socrates takes up his defense, not as a man who is pleading for his life, but as a proud man who is not about to bow before any jury or prosecutor. He knows that he is right in his morals and beliefs and he will stand by them to the death...which possibly is what he wants.

      The question has been asked if Socrates wants to be a martyr or if he was simply being brave enough to stand by his beliefs. Judging by the pride one has to have after being proclaimed the wisest man alive, and the cockiness the aging Socrates shows throughout the dialogues, it is fair to assume that though he is doing what he is doing because he believes it to be right, he also likes the idea of being seen as a martyr. Not every just action stems from just intentions, or possibly more relative to this situation, not every just action stems only from just intentions.

      Socrates knows well that he will die for his beliefs if he does not cower before the jury, possibly bring out his family to gain pity, and even go as far as suggest the jury exile him. He honestly believes that bringing witnesses to gain pity does nothing but hurt the law, and he honestly believes that going anywhere in exile will simply result in a similar fate of being unpopular because of his god-inspired need to prove those that would claim to be wise incorrect.

      There is no chance that a man of 70 years old, who has never found anyone capable of defeating him in any debate, will ask mercy of 280 close-minded jurors. Even after being convicted, he will not admit that he should be punished, as that would mean admitting having done something unjust or impious, which of course he believes he has not. The reader gets the impression that he only suggests the fine that he proposes at his friends' urging, as his claim that they should only fine him something he can afford to give, as it would not hurt him, seems a little much of a stretch.

      Some would argue that the crass manner in which he regards the jury is an attempt to become a martyr. There are two simple reasons why this theory should be disregarded. The first reason is of course that Socrates would have to do nothing at all to get executed. It is clear from the start that the prosecutor will ask for the death penalty, and obviously, Socrates has made enough enemies throughout the years to ensure that no one will stop his execution. The second reason is of course that his cockiness, even to the point of saying he should be rewarded instead of being punished, is not produced by Socrates, but instead gained through constantly proving himself wise. He may claim to know nothing, or very little, but he still knows more than any man, and he's not about to forget that. Though in general, Socrates acts in a very humble way, there is no way that a title such as "World's Wisest Man" could not go to your head even a little. Even if conceit was not to blame for his attitude, the very fact that there are young men trying to accuse and out-argue him, despite his years and years of philosophy and debate, would inspire a sort of substantiated pride and resentment that could easily create the attitude Socrates seems to have.

      The truth is that though Socrates makes his claims based on what he holds to be true, he does so with a certain love for attention and respect that a Supreme Court justice has before overturning a popular law, or a baseball umpire has before making a close call against the home team. He loves to do what's right, not always because it is right, but because of feelings that would be all but impossible to escape. He feels pride in standing up for what he believes in, he feels pride in knowing to be true what others think to be false, and he feels pride for saving the law from the damage he could do unto it with ease, and it is for those reasons that he accepts the penalty of death without asking for mercy.

Whoa, you read the whole thing? Amazing. Wait..are you sure you didn't just scroll to the bottom to get to the links? Well whatever, since you made it this far I will intrust in you my email address...Tom@pukeonpavement.com...write me and tell me you agree or disagree with something in this essay. To be honest, I don't know which I'd like best. Anyway, if you write me, I'll smile, and then keeping it real might just be a little more of a challenge.