A Wrong Among Rights : Philosopher Judged Unfairly

By Aksala405,

A factual account of the lifestyle and death of the great philosopher Socrates.

An essay hosted at PhilosophyClassics.com

The jury of a regularly righteous society passed an unjust verdict in the trial of Socrates, ignoring the beliefs, actions, influences, and other self-evident information defending the accused. The well known philosopher was sentenced to death for attempting to "change the current religion", "abandon the gods", "introduce new religious beliefs", "plant immoral ideas in the vulnerable minds of the young" as well as "speak against the democratic system". These accusations, however, are a result of a combination between misinterpretation of Socrates’ intentions and distrust for the philosopher’s unconventional methods.
Socrates was a man who’s life was guided by religion and a love of his birthplace, Athens. He felt that it was a calling from God to pursue and teach philosophy. His God-given duty was to inspire and motivate people to gain knowledge and wisdom, and to aid them in reaching truth and self-understanding. Socrates spent several years as an infantryman in the Peloponnesian War, fighting gallantly to protect his state. Upon his return he perused the philosophical work he had left uncompleted instead of joining his fellow citizens at the Bouleterion to discuss politics. He felt that he could better serve his state by educating it’s future leaders and current citizens, so he spent his time in the acropolis discussing and questioning. This was his notable and successful teaching strategy: to question. He would pose a questions in such a way that the person’s mind involuntarily began to process it and would automatically ponder and examine itself, numerous theories, and the world. In this way, Socrates lead his students to enlightenment and insight, without preaching or lecturing. Because of his unique method, many residents have expanded to a higher level of intelligence. When more educated, leaders can see all angles of a situation and so can more ably see the solution, residents can see the wiser path to
take, and the state profits overall. However, while many saw Socrates’ actions as a progressive step, there were those who disapproved of his unique methods.
Dislike for Socrates’ actions and beliefs lead him to imprisonment. It has been observed by this writer that more mature adult citizens have fixed beliefs in their minds and are resistant to change. It is unsettling to them to consider that everything they have ever believed is wrong, or is not the only possibility. These members of society disliked Socrates’ questioning style because they could not stop themselves from pondering the question that had been asked, or from realizing he might be right. Younger adults and youth, on the other hand, have not yet firmly decided what they believe and are more open to considering new concepts and theories. Because Socrates encouraged the changing of ideas and constant movement of the mind, older citizens were wary of his effect on youth and misinterpreted his intentions for crimes. Since he frequently spoke of an inner voice guiding him that was mysterious to many, he was accused of introducing new religious beliefs. As a result of suggesting the possibility that there was only one god in the place of many, he was accused of neglecting the gods and attempting to alter the religion. He was further charged with speaking against democracy and corrupting the minds of Athens for his own benefit. Yet those who admire Socrates instead of fear him see that not only can these actions be more correctly interpreted as wise, but that they are not the only actions that challenge the accuracy of the jury’s ruling.
Setting aside the actions that only apparently correspond with each of the above accusations, there are many other pieces of the puzzle that do not fit correctly with the verdict of the jury. Socrates himself stood during his trial and made some excellent points in his defense. For example, if he was working to "corrupt the mind of Athens for his own benefit", why was he sending his family and himself into poverty by doing so? Socrates received no pay for his teaching work and rarely sold a sculpture for much money. Additionally, it is impossible to say that a man is not religious if he has dedicated his life to what he thinks the Gods of that religion want him to do. Socrates was critical of democracy, yet it was because he felt that ignorant people could elect aggressive and unfit leaders. To improve this, he tried to educate the people so that the system would improve. The jury was not swayed by these significant pieces of information and pronounced his death sentence. It has been rumored that early this morning a group of Socrates’ friends produced an escape plan that he promptly refused. In his imprisonment, Socrates is allowed to be with several friends on his death day. It has been reported he is the happiest person in the room. It is, as he said, not his loss to be killed at such an old age with a fulfilled life, but rather a pity for those who convicted him, for they are disobeying the will of God.
To follow through with an opinion-soiled decision is to lose the life of a man who worked to improve our society and mankind. The great philosopher Socrates taught the youth of Athens a clear and unbiased understanding of justice, love, and virtue. He taught that it was dishonorable to gain wealth instead of earning wisdom. He taught, on God’s command, every individual value and great quality of Athens and democracy. Equality and justice, honesty and humility. He encouraged expansion of the mind so that everyone may improve. It is appalling to think that such a fair and valuable society will put to death an educator, philosopher, and guide to insight, "for it is only through knowledge that we can arrive at individual virtue and collective justice."- Socrates.