 |
Many of humankind’s greatest stories illustrate a society mistakenly condemning its heroes while elevating its enemies. The concept of a society condemning heroes and elevating its enemies is a major element of ancient stories. In the “Apology” of the Trial and Death of Socrates, the author, Plato, contrasts Socractes’s humility and honesty with his enemies’ pride and deceitfulness, using an appeal to human morality to show that Socrates should be absolved of guilt and set free.
Plato first contrasts Socrates’ humility with the pride of his enemies, showing that Socrates has been a better man than any one of them. Socrates, who is widely-known as a wise man, says that he has “no wisdom, small or great” (22). Though many other teachers take money as payment from their students, Socrates does not over-value his wisdom. While he spends the bulk of his time teaching and discussing philosophy with others, he refuses to take payment from anyone for his words or his time (21). While Socrates does not believe himself to be wise, the men of Athens believe themselves to be sagacious and take pride in their self-perceived wisdom. Socrates gives two examples of self-perceived wise men: one of a politician and another of a well-known wise man. Socrates believes that the essence of his wisdom comes from the fact that he does not think himself to be wise, and he tries to explain to the politician and wise man that they will gain wisdom if they realize that they are not wise either. (23, 24). The politician and wise man, however, feel threatened by Socrates’ seemingly negative evaluation of their wisdom and make themselves his enemies (23). While Socrates recognizes and advertises his lack of wisdom, his accusers falsely believe themselves to be wise and pompously publicize their perceived wisdom.
By contrasting Socrates’s humble view of his wisdom with his enemies’ haughty view of their own wisdom, Plato demonstrates that Socrates is the most humble, and therefore, virtuous, Athenian citizen. Despite his virtue, innocence, and commitment to helping others understand the meaning of wisdom, Socrates is hated and tried for spreading discord among the Atheniam people. Meanwhile, the arrogant members of the accusing crowd, namely the politician and wise man, hate Socrates because he unintentionally wounded their senses of ego, which leads them to have him convicted of spreading chaos (41). Plato contrasts the innocent and humble nature of Socrates with the hateful and vainglorious nature of his enemies, demonstrating that pride ironically leads the haughty members of the Athenian crowd to destroy their most humble citizen.
After first comparing Socrates’s humility with his enemies’ pride, Plato then contrasts Socrates’ humility with his enemies’ deceitfulness. He then states that he does not change his message based on his audience, but speaks to individuals the same message that he speaks to the entire world (33). Socrates says, “If any one likes to come and hear me while I am pursuing my mission, whether he be young or old, he may freely come” (33). Socrates does not change his message based on the character, age, race, economic status, or number of his listeners. His enemies, though, seek out the most mentally vulnerable and impressionable members of society and spread rumors about Socrates among them. Because they target their rumors at impressionable and ignorant children, the accuser’s numerous claims against Socrates’s character isare accepted without rebuttal (20). Socrates’s accusers take advantage of the ignorance of children to spread false messages. Socrates himself, meanwhile, readily allows his ideas to be critiqued by anyone of any background.
By illustrating Socrates’s honesty in contrast with his enemies’ deceitfulness, Plato shows that Socrates is more honest than many of the men of Athens. Socrates allows anyone from any background to learn from him, and speaks the same message to each of his students. However, by aiming lies about Socrates’s character at children and taking advantage of their still-developing minds, Socrates’s enemies show themselves to be opportunistic liars.
In the “Apology,” Plato uses the extreme differences between the characters of Socrates and Socrates’ enemies to illustrate that society often condemns its heroes while elevating its villains. The stark difference between Socrates’ humble and honest character, and his enemies’ prideful and deceitful characters is made even more severe by the fact that Socrates is on trial for his life, while his enemies are the accusers. Socrates, a humble and honest man, is in danger of being put to death by men who are conceited and tell lies to children. Plato uses contrast between Socrates’s virtue and his enemies’ corruption to directly appeal to the human sense of morality and argue that Socrates should be acquitted of all charges and allowed to live.
