GSI: Kuan
To start his argument, Socrates begins with a summary of his testimony thus far. This reminder frames the following argument into the larger piece, but Socrates tailors the reminder to compliment this passage's argument. Socrates summarizes his argument by saying “I have told you already… they like to hear the cross-examination of the pretenders to wisdom” (Plato) but that once again he is gifted this wisdom by divine power such that “if not true, would be soon refuted” (Plato) by his students testifying against him. Socrates then elaborates on the point that his older students and their families have not come forward to testify against him. He says that by the time of his trial, a number of students have grown to the age that they should be able to understand that Socrates has corrupted them. Additionally, he phrases this statement as a sort of challenge for them to testify against him, demonstrating his confidence in their loyalty by saying that those who “have become sensible that I gave them bad advice in the days of their youth should come forward as accusers and take their revenge” (Plato). He goes on to legitimize this claim by listing a number of people who are in the position to testify against him, but have not. By associating himself with numerous notable individuals in Athens, he increases his credibility as a speaker, as each person’s credibility is offered in support of Socrates in that they have not testified against the claims he has made through his trial. He once again challenges those that he has listed to appear before the court and seek their revenge on Socrates, if he is responsible for any wrongdoing. He says “any of whom Meletus should have produced as witnesses in the course of his speech” (Plato) to return to the stand with “any testimony of the sort which he can produce” (Plato). Again, this idea of challenging his students whom he has allegedly wronged to testify demonstrates for the audience just how confident Socrates is in his plea for innocence. Finally, Socrates concludes his entire argument that his students have not come forward because they do not feel as if Socrates had wronged them, and thus he could not be guilty for the charges he is testifying. This main argument of passage is summarized in a rhetorical question that begs the audience to rethink their position on the trial of Socrates, declaring “why should they too support me with their testimony…. except for the sake of truth and justice, and because they know that I am speaking the truth, and that Meletus is lying” (Plato). The audience must think about whether or not they could still find Socrates guilty given those allegedly harmed have not come forward to lay blame.
By working step by step through the argument, Socrates simplifies the argument so that any audience member can understand specifically not only is Socrates not guilty, but there has been no corruption of youth regardless. Most simply, if those whom he has allegedly wronged do not feel the need to testify against him, he is not guilty of the accusations.
2 comments:
Leland,
This is a good and focused reading, but perhaps the selection is a little short? It is hard to see you pull out multiple parts of a complex argument since what you isolate as its major thesis (i.e. that none of Socrates' followers have come forward themselves to accuse him of corruption, therefore he did no wrong) appears to have no component parts. Or, otherwise stated, you do not show us that this singular claim actually includes smaller component parts. You mention to us that nobody steps forward, and that this silence or lack of action serves as a sign that Meletus is lying. This is a helpful cue, and you might want to have mentioned how this summoning of the presences (or absences) of his followers-as-accusers has a rhetorical form of argumentation that attributes sign to the absence of signs. This allows Socrates to imbue it with the meaning that he needs in order to make his defense. To say that Socrates moves "slowly" or "step by step" does little to help elucidate how he does it or what he actually does.
Leland, I must say that I did my precis on the Apology as well. The area of focus that you have differs from mine and I like this point of view. For example you mention Socrates students a lot, and how they don't testify against him, therefore he is not guilty. This point of view is great because it allowed me to see a different form of argument for this text. I focused on the parable of Delphi, and based my argument on that. Thank you for providing us with this perspective !
Post a Comment