The most significant part of Socrates’s life was the constant search for the truth. His goal was to ask Athens the right questions in order to make them realize their beliefs and mostly to examine different viewpoints, looking for objective truth. Although it seemed that he did the research in favor of society’s benefit, he was brought to trial on two grounds: corrupting the young minds and not worshiping the city’s gods (West & Plato, 1979). Looking deeply at Socrates’ life, the vital quote provoking discussions to the present day is, “I know that I know nothing.” It is called “the Socratic paradox,” and there are some bullet points illustrating my complete agreement with his position reflected in Plato’s Apology.
Socrates does not understand why the Oracle at Delphi claims that he is the wisest man in Greece’s metropolis. It indicates that, while finding out others’ professional knowledge by asking philosophical questions, Socrates tried to define whether the people were wise or whether they considered themselves as ones (West & Plato, 1979). Thus, their distinguishing feature was the firm belief that the Athenians’ bright minds claimed themselves as indeed wise. However, the human brain is not able to accommodate all the knowledge of the world, and only the person who realizes that is definitely the wisest.
Indeed, this position may seem a bit senseless to ordinary people. However, the more profound investigation of Plato’s work and the demonstrative examples will shed light on Socrates’s mindset. First, asking proper questions was not teaching, but recollecting youngsters’ knowledge because they already had it. In other words, Socrates was carrying out the gods’ will as he maintained that he is a devotee (as he believed in supernatural beings) because he had neither the intentions nor the knowledge to corrupt the young (West & Plato, 1979). Then, when Socrates’ life was at stake, he believed that the death penalty must have been the will of the gods and assured the jury that death is a blessing. According to Plato (1979), there is a Constructive Dilemma: if death is like a dreamless sleep or a relocation to another place, then death is a blessing in both cases. Consequently, though Socrates searches for truth led him to his eventual death, it worth living.
The reason why Socrates did not appeal to the Assembly for mercy is that he was sincerely convinced of his life goal to practice philosophy. An individual ought to be acquitted not out of pity in a court of law judges because they judge an innocent man according to the law (West & Plato, 1979). Nevertheless, Socrates distinguished two ways of persuading the juries by a defendant. The first option is to apply emotional or rhetorical tricks such as logos, ethos, and pathos. The second option is to affect them through philosophical dialectic, which he used in the court himself. For instance, he draws the jury to the conclusion that exile is a perfect punishment for him, but various people would have to tolerate his conversation (West & Plato, 1979). Therefore, Socrates said, “It would be a fine life at my age to be driven out of one city after another.” Finally, Socrates was always able to refute any definition while answering the question because the polemic came to the contradictory outcome.
Moreover, if Socrates had appealed for mercy, it would undermine his commitment to being a critical thinker. He stood up for this believes and provided the argumentative and logically structured defense. Socrates was not afraid of death, because he faced with a choice between death (which might not be evil) or disobeying God’s mission (which is precisely evil). Thus, everything stated above proves that Socrates is not only a great philosopher and critical thinker but also the wisest person of ancient times.
Reference
West T. G., & Plato. (1979). Plato’s Apology of Socrates: An interpretation, with a new translation. Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell University Press.