At the end of last week, we spent some time thinking about the Ancient Greeks in order to provide a context for understanding Socrates. On Thursday we visited the Metropolitan Museum of Art to look at Ancient Greek art and on Friday we had a guest lecturer from Yale who talked about understanding the "Apology" as a type of play.
Please write three paragraphs explaining how ONE of these events helped you to understand Socrates better. Please structure your response as follows:
P1: Describe what you saw or heard. Be as straightforward and clear as possible.
P2: Pick out a specific part from a Socratic dialog and explain it.
P3: Explain how the experience described in paragraph 1 helped you understand the part of the dialog described in paragraph 2.
As a reminder, this blog post counts as a "project" which means it counts more toward your grade than weekly blog posts.
20 comments:
During the guest lecture, Mr.Deveck from Yale told us more about the Apology by Plato. Mr.Deveck stated that in Plato's Apology Socrates had a good speech (Socrates was a good orater). Mr.Deveck also stated that during Socrates' speech he was trying to explain to the jury that there was a matter of mistaken identity. That Socrates was being confused with a different Socrates that was well-known at the time.
In the Apology by Plato at 19c Socrates says "You have seen this yourself in the comedy of Aristophanes, a Socrates swinging about there, saying he was walking on air and talking a lot of other nonsense about which I know nothing at all." Here Socrates means that he was being confused with a different Socrates from Aristophanes in Clouds, which was first produced in 423 B.C..
The guest lecture helped me understand what Socrates was arguing about stated in Paragraph 2. The guest speaker helped me understand that Socrates was arguing about a matter of mistaken identity by this other Socrates stated previously. By knowing this it aided me in understanding this and many more dialogs from the Apology. Mr.Deveck cleared up many things for me in the Apology and after listening to what he had to say I understand the Apology even more accurately.
On Friday, we were very fortunate to have a guest speaker from Yale to come and give a lecture about Socrates. He helped clarify many things in "The Apology". He told us about how one's defense in a typical trial in Ancient Greece would be a long play. He also explained how not much importance was put on laws, and how Socrates had various students who made various diverse accounts of what he was like during his time.
In the Apology, Socrates states on 34d; “I am not born from ‘oak or rock’ but from men, so that I have a family, indeed three sons, men of Athens, of whom one is an adolescent while two are children. Nevertheless I will not beg you to acquit me by bringing them here.” Socrates says here, that he will not beg for pity, by bringing his family and dressing up in raps, to look poor and appeal to the people.
Mr. Devecka’s lecture on Friday helped clarify a lot of things. He had explained that in Ancient Greece, when people were put on trial, they would attempt to gain the jury’s pity by dressing up in rags, and bringing a huge family, and making a huge pitiful play. They jury usually goes to trials to simply entertain themselves. Socrates neglected to entertain them, which led directly to his death sentence.
The Yale professor Mr. Devecka helped clarify several confusing ideas of the Apology, which was written by Plato. One of the main ideas he educated the class about was the judicial system of Athens at the time, as well as Socrates willingness to challenge the scared laws of Athens. Mr. Devecka explained that the Athenian judicial system was a huge act that was solely developed to entertain the Jury. It was not developed to discover the truth, similar to our current judicial system. The reason for this is most of the speeches presented were scripts written by lagogaphoi or sophists. These scripts were written to appease the jury which helped the defendant’s case when determining the final verdict. The reason for the poor judicial system was, at that time words constructed the Athenian reality instead of laws.
Socrates challenges the beliefs that words should construct a reality because Socrates believes that laws should construct a reality instead. Socrates shows these ideas when he states on page 34 section 32a, “Listen to what happened to me, that you may know that I will not yield to any man contrary to what is right, for fear of death, even if I should die at once for not yielding. The things I shall tell you are commonplace and smack of the law courts, but they are true. “Socrates states here that he will not fabricate his person or entertain the jury for fear of death. He also won’t yield to the jury’s incorrect views even though he is threatened with death. Socrates will challenge the belief that words should construct a reality. The reason for this is Socrates strongly believes that laws construct a reality, he believes this to the point that he is willing to be a martyr and die for his beliefs.
The saying, words construct the reality of Athenians at the time, is vital because it helps in understanding the quotation. This is because when the Athenians believed this saying, they were agreeing that plays and acting should determine a person’s sentence or verdict instead of the law and justice. Socrates apposes this saying, and believes laws and justice should determine and construct their reality this is why he states he will yield to no man’s incorrect views even if he is faced with death. The reason is, if Socrates submits he will be contradicting himself and will be agreeing with the very idea he disagrees with. Mr. Devecka’s speech helped me learn about Socrates and why he was the first real philosopher because I learned that Socrates was the first person to challenge a widely accepted societal flaw thoughtfully and without fear to achieve the truth.
-Arman-Toussaint Warner
Mr. Devecka enlightened me with many profound reasons why Socrates did what he did in court. He could have had a chance to live; he could have had a chance to make a better arguement, but there was a reason why he didn't want to, and that, was what Mr. Devecka cleared for us. Basically the reason why he died was because he gave an arguement that was not in favor of the Jury. He refused to do what an average Athenian would do in court, he refused to be a logographoi, or in other words a sophists. Sophists were people who told you how to act and would make your argument in court. According to Mr. Davecka, Socrates refused to didn't get one. Which meant that he wasn't prepared or didn't want to be. He also brought back information that was related to the Oligarchic period, which every Athenian took an oath on to forget. Mr. Devecka also incorporated information from other texts to give us an understanding of the things that weren't provided in the text we were reading.
On page 37, section 34E, Socrates mentions that he has a family and also says that,"Nonetheless , I will not beg you to acquit me by bringing them here." By saying that, he is telling the Jury that he is not like every other Athenian. Athenians come to court portraying themselves to be somebody else and make another reality through their words. That implication is what leads to Socrates refusing to make a reality of words. Also, in the middle of section 32 c-d, he brings back the harsh oligarchic period, which was not in favor of the Jury at all and which didn't help his as well.
Having Mr. Devecka to explain Socrates performance in court truely helped me understand why he didn't win, even though his argument was marvelous. Also, the book does not put any emphasis to Socrated mentioning the oligarchic period, was was something that I've disregarded before without knowing the significance of it. Mr. Devecka helped me understand why he had the death penalty, which remained a mystery because the book did not put any emphasis on the reasons why he didn't survive.
Mr.Devecka's trip helped me form a deeper understanding of Socrates's mission. I learned that
Socrates lived in a time period, where court cases had no witnesses,judges, and did not
appreciate the law. It can also be said that, Ancient Athenians would be wary of someone who used the law in his defense, and think that he was trying to trick them. More importantly i also
learned that ancient court cases, where similar to plays. The accused would, put on acts,
as if they were weak,and helpless, to win the audiences attention and sympathy. Some rich people would even go as far as dressing in rags, to appear poor and weak and win the hearts of the jury. Entertainment to the Greeks came in the form of dramas,comedies, and court cases, and one can infer that the winner of the case was the more entertaining.
In the "Apology" dialogue, Socrates states," One thing i do ask and beg of you, gentlemen: if you hear me making my defense in the same kind of language as I am accustomed to use in the marketplace by the bankers' tables,where many of you have heard me, and else where do not be surprised or create a disturbance on that account." Socrates means, that he will conduct his defense in the manner he always conducts any philosophical manner. A manner in which, he questions an argument, then proceeds to analyze and dissect it until he has come to a truthful conclusion, as he did during his debate about piety with Euthyphro.This manner, was rather unusual, and unprecedented in the Athenian court, in which drama, and pathos are known to win cases. There is no doubt that Socrates, took a risk using such a novel method.
Originally, i did not understand why Socrates chose to argue this way. I was confused about whether he knew the consequences of such an action. Mr. Devecka's lecture on Ancient Greece however, cleared this confusion. I learned that Socrates could of easily won, the case in a short period of time, had he used the more conventional and dramatic method of argument. Socrates however was stubborn, he insisted on providing the jury with truth rather than drama. Socrates, stuck to his beliefs on how he thought court cases, and matters of faith should be handled. Originally, i naively donned Socrates as a fool for choosing such a risky method, however after Mr.Deveckas lecture, I see Socrates, as a martyr, a hero, a true marvel among men, and the as the first great philosopher. His choices, and beliefs are now present in our justice system, where truth is the only thing that matters.
Thankfully Mr.Devecka of Yale was nice enoguh to visit us. He taught us much of the judicial history of Athens. Such as the jury are basically a way to make money while having some entertainment. One person lying about another person in front of people is like a comedian act in front of the jury.
Socrates let the jury freely pick whether they want him to die or not(38-39). This was a really just idea i thought at first but i realized then this was stupid.
The jury is going to vote for of course who was more entertain fro them. I mean there were no choices from anyone else besides a jury and all they want is a fun "show". If Socrates entertained them more rather then just letting then see how truthfully he was, he might have lived.
Mr. Devecka's lecture on the Ancient Greek judicial system was truly an eye-opener which helped give background information into Socrates' "Apology." He informed the class on numerous topics such as the fact that most trials in that time period were considered plays and used for entertainment purposes. He explained that there were no lawyers, no jury, and no judges. He also stated that because laws in Greece were basically disregarded in total, Socrates could have easily gotten his charges dropped and set free to live. The entire point of the court was not to prove someone guilty or innocent, rather to appease the viewers.
However Socrates did not play along with this traditional way of dealing with a trial and this was probably why he was sentenced to death. He refused to play along with what the viewers wanted to hear. He didn't even have a speech prepared! Socrates states: "Perhaps one ofyou might be angry as he recalls that when he himself stood trial on a less dangerous charge, he begged and implored the juymen with many tears...but that I do none of these things, even though I mau seem to be running the ultimate risk. (34c)"
Socrates believes that this is the only way he can truly stand behind his teachings and beliefs.
The lecture from Mr. Devecka really helped me udnerstand the true moives behind Socrates' death. I had previously believed that it was because of the accusations brought against him, but I now realize that this had almost nothing to do with it. Socrates portrayed himself as a nuisance and did not please the trial viewers. However this was actually necessary for Socrates to be able to push his ideas through seeing as he would have seemed hypocritical if he had not been sentenced in the manner he was.
-Santiljan Vukaj
We were lucky enough to have an experienced professor from Yale come and talk to us about the apology, and more of the meaning that we didn’t already know. He first gave us some background information, telling us that usually in ancient Greece, court hearings were usually like a show, or play. We also learned that there was no evidence, no witnesses, no judge, just a jury. Also, people called logographois would write your speeches for you.
Socrates could have won the court case and gone free, because he was an excellent orator. However, he didn’t really come up with an argument against them, rather than just telling everything wrong about them. He also didn’t give them what they wanted: entertainment. Mr. Deveck said that pretty much the only reason the jury went to the court hearings was for entertainment. Not only did Socrates deter from all the rules that were laid out for him, he also made it harder on himself by not dressing up like a homeless person, and bringing his wife and children to the trial. In ancient Greece, Mr. Deveck said that people would come dressed in dirty clothing and rags to gain mercy from the jury. Socrates didn’t want to take the easy way out, and we don’t even know if he wanted to live or not. But it is pretty certain he wanted to make his point.
Mr Deveck definitely cleared up a lot of things about Socrates, like the way courts were constructed, the way that Socrates’ speech was presented, and things Socrates could have done if he actually wanted to live. The apology was very hard to look at by yourself, but when you know a lot more about what you’re studying, its easier to figure things out.
-Alexander Kiladze
The guest speaker from Yale, Mr Devecka, cleared up some of the reasons for Socrates' final sentencing of death. Mr Devecka told us of how trials were held in Athens; he told us how trials weren't so much trials, but plays held for the jury. People would get scripts written for them by “sophists” or “logographoi,” who would prepare your “act” for you so you wouldn't be charged. However, Socrates did not believe that words were equal to the truth, so he refused to have his speech written for him by one of these sophists.
In the Apology, he talks of people who bring their friends and family into court, as well as go in with tattered rags as clothing to get as much pity from the jury as possible. He then talks about his three children, but says that he “will not beg you (the jury) to acquit me by bringing them here” (34d). This shows that Socrates would rather the jury acquit him because of the validity of his arguments, rather than on the basis that he had to take care of his children.
Mr Devecka's explanation of how Socrates didn't want any ideas but his own to help him from being executed helped me understand the idea that he wouldn't do everything that he could to get out of the sentencing. Socrates didn't believe that just saying something was true, so he didn't hide behind fake words that he doesn't believe or his children, and instead speaks what he actually thinks. Unfortunately, this isn't what the jury wanted to see at all, so they sentenced him to death.In the Apology, he talks of people who bring their friends and family into court, as well as go in with tattered rags as clothing to get as much pity from the jury as possible. He then talks about his three children, but says that he “will not beg you (the jury) to acquit me by bringing them here” (34d). This shows that Socrates would rather the jury acquit him because of the validity of his arguments, rather than on the basis that he had to take care of his children.
Mr Devecka's explanation of how Socrates didn't want any ideas but his own to help him from being executed helped me understand the idea that he wouldn't do everything that he could to get out of the sentencing. Socrates didn't believe that just saying something was true, so he didn't hide behind fake words that he doesn't believe or his children, and instead speaks what he actually thinks. Unfortunately, this isn't what the jury wanted to see at all, so they sentenced him to death.
My post is of the guest lecture form Mr. Deveca. From Mr. Deveca’s lecture I learned of many things that carry relevance to our unit on the apology of Socrates to the court of Athens at his trial. One of these things is that I learned that in Athens around the time of Socrates the jury which compromised of men of voting age and that they came because they were paid to and because they way in which that people that came to court defended selves or prosecuted the other person (which is a second thing that I have learned from the lecture by Mr. Deveca) was a performance and a skillful speech in which pun were thought smart and could be written by a sophist for a fee. A third thing that I learned was that in that time in Athens it was thought that words shape reality not laws.
A part from the speech of Socrates called the Apology is on page 17b Socrates states “ I show myself not to be a accomplished speaker at all, that I thought was most shameless on their part- unless indeed they call an accomplished speaker someone that speaks the truth”. What this means is that Socrates says that he is not a speaker that will speak to make the jury to let him free but that he will speak with a restriction of telling the truth.
The lecture by Mr. Deveca helped me understand this part of the apology by Socrates in the form of two ways. The first ways that because at the time of Socrates a “good” defense was a performance and a act when Socrates states that he is not a accomplished speaker he means that he refuses to play along with the usual act of defense. The second way that the lecture helped understand the apology was that I learned that words not truth mattered at that time when Socrates states that he will speak the truth he says that he thinks that law matters not just empty words.
MR. Deveka brought up an interesting topic about Socrates' defense compared to the regular athenian defense. MR Deveka said that athenian courts were like movie theatres. he said that the defendant would main plead innocent by making the jury feel pity for them. Socrates in the other hand tries to prove his innocence by proving what he did was not wrong but misinterpreted. His intentions were not meant to question Athens but mainly to find out what's true and what's not.
Socrates says to Mletus in court "Wicked people always do some harm to their closest neigbors while good people do them good, but Ih ave reached such a pitch of ignorance that I do not realize this...... Either I do not corruupt the young or, if I do, it is unwillingly and you are lying n either case(25e-26). Here Socrates tells Meletus that no one wants to be harmed deliberately. So if he taught the children something that would hurt Athens in any way then he would be hurting himself since he himslef is part of Athens society. Therefore he could not be hurting the children and if he was, then it was unintentional and then Meletus has no case because the law of Athens requires Meletus to meet with Socrates indidviually and explain to him that he is hurting the children.
When mr. Deveka said that Socrates chose not to follow the regular Athenian way of defending himself, it made me understand Socrates' way defending himself. I understood how he proved Meletus wrong, but I never quite understood how it related. Mr. Deveka explained that Socrates chose not to defend himself in the norm, it made it easier to contemplate his overall argument.
On Friday, October 16th, our class was fortunate enough to have a guest speaker from Yale visit and give us a wonderful lecture on Plato’s Apology. Mr. Devecka, the guest speaker, gave us more of a background on the Ancient Greeks to have a clearer understanding on the trial of Socrates. We learned that courtroom trials were actually a lot like plays. There are these people called the logographoi (sophists) that write out their scripts for them. Had Socrates gone to a sophist, he probably wouldn’t have been sentenced to death. Mr. Devecka also told us how the laws weren’t very important to the Ancient Greeks, which is why a simple script could get you out of the hands of the law.
It seems that Socrates is intent on not using traditional ways of getting out of trouble. In 34C, Socrates says that there may be someone that had “begged and implored” the jury and that he brought his children and his friends and family into the court to win the sympathy of the jury. He then goes on to say that he “will not beg you to acquit me by bringing them here”. If Socrates had used emotional manipulation, his life would still be his.
It was pretty interesting that Socrates would just completely disregard tradition that would guarantee a higher chance of freedom and go for a method that had little to no chance of success. Mr. Devecka helped us understand the mind of Socrates better, despite that no one could ever really truly understand the puzzle that is Socrates’ mind. Socrates seems to have a clear image of how he wants to live his own life – he doesn’t care about what other people have done before him. He wants to test his own strengths by offering his own arguments rather than those of sophists.
When Mr. Devecka came from Yale, he talked about how another writer, named Xenophon, had also recorded Socrates' apology when he was charged and convicted. According to Mr. Devecka, there may have been a difference between the Socrates that Plato wrote about and the Socrates that Xenophon wrote about, but they probably are the same person anyway. What Mr. Devecka mentioned that, other than the Apology by being a type of play, but that the way Socrates acted in the Apology by Xenophon was much more of out of place, than compared to how he was in Plato. What i mean by this is that the way Socrates acted in Xenophon's Apology was more extreme than how Socrates was in Plato's Apology. As Mr. Devecka said, unlike in the Apology by Plato, it looks as if in the Apology by Xenophon, the people in the court disliked his argument so much, that even people in the jury interrupted him, in way, invoking their anger.
In the Apology, Socrates still continues to examine his life, even under the conditions of being close to death. This shows that the examined life, the life that Socrates led, the life that he loved, is something that he believed in so much, that even under the pressure becaue persecution because of his belief, he still lived by it, even in the face of death.
Looking back at the Apology and Socrates arguement of the eamined and unexamined life, its seems that in both the cases of Xenophon's Plato's Apology, it's seems that, even though there may be a difference between the two Socrates from both apologies, it seems that both had a way of annoying the jury with the way they argued to defense. It seems that even though the views of Socarates through Xenophon and Plato differ in some aspects, both were able to capture the general idea of Socrates
Candy L.
Last Friday during class, Mr.Devecka from Yale gave us a guest lecture. He answers the question about why Socrates is sentenced to death when he didn't do anything wrong. First he introduced how Athenian court system is like during that time period. He states that there is no judge, no witness, no evidence like the court now days, there's only Jury, they make all the decisions in the Athenian court. So if the defendants want to get away from the punishments, they have to act in a way which the Jurys are going to like to see, words are the reality, not the truth. There is a specific type of workers called the Sophists, they wrote the script for the defendants and help them to act as another person on the court. Socrates didn't go to the Sophists, he didn't even prepare his speech, he decided to be himself instead of what the Jurys wanted him to be.
"I have a family, indeed three sons...I will not beg you to acquit me by bringing them here...it does not seem right to me to do these things."(34e), Socrates means that he is not going to do what others do, he is not going to beg for pity from the Jurys, he think it is not right to do that. Socrates believed in a city run by law instead of words. So he decided to be himself and speaks the truth.
The reason why Socrates is sentenced to death is because that he chose to not conform.But obviously the Jury is not going to like that, if Socrates can entertain the Jurys instead of using laws to try to explain the truth, he might not have been sentenced to death, but he chose to do what he think is right, he speaks out whatever he think is the truth, that's why he get what he get.
Our trip to the Metropolitan Museum of Art gave much insight on the time that Socrates lived and about the Ancient Greeks' lifestyle. What stands out to me the most is the value of warriors. I observed three artifacts of which two represent this idea. The first artifact I examined was a fragment of a red- figure Terracotta Kylix, or cup. On this cup, a warrior with a shield was depicted. This suggests the pride the Ancient Greeks had in their army. They were considered highly of. The warrior's arm was raised in an Offensive position. This strength of facing the enemy boldly, reminds me much of Socrates. He embraced every challenge that was handed to him. The second artifact I observed was a Bronze Greave (a shin guard). On the front of the greave was a human face. The person's eyes were wide open, which I interpreted as the warrior not backing down. This "head- on" approach specifaclly, reminded me of Socrates not giving up his right to a testimony and not fearing danger or death. I believe the face hints at a faith that the warriors had. They did not fear death in combat because they had faith. This is the same reason why Socrates did not fear death.
Socrates gained a sense of courage from having faith/ a strong set of beliefs. He shows his fearlessness on page 33, 30c, lines 1-3, by bravely stating, "...whether you aquit me or not, do so on the understanding that this is my course of action, even if I am to face death many times." Socrates obviously lacks a sense of fear, in this bold statement. He decides to follow through with his arguemnts and notifies the jury, that whatever verdict they arrive upon, he stands by his story, even if he is convicted, charged and sentenced to death.
Going to the museum offered many valueable insights on what the Ancient Greeks valued. They valued strenth, courage and faith. Their warriors were successful because they had faith, courage and a determination. This gave them the ability to overcome whatever fear they had. This sheds much light on Socrates, because his bold statements suggest that he too had a very strong set of beliefs, which helped give him the courage and strength he had in his words. The trip provided details about what made the Ancient Greek army strong and also what made Socrates so strong and fearless. The trip helped me to recognize what warrior- like qulaities Soctrates possesed.
When Mr. Devecka came to lecture our class he described the Athens court as a theatre. Where the actors are those involved with the case, and their goal is not to be truthful but to gain the appeal of the jury. Because of this, laws became unimportant or irrelevant in the process of being found guilty or not guilty.
Socrates says that he is not coming in front of the jury in an attempt to win their vote with pity. He could have had his family come in dressed in rags pleading to the jury not to find Socrates guilty because they depend on him for welfare. But he makes a point of not doing this.
When I began thinking of the court as a theatre it made me think of why Socrates did not try to make the jury feel pity. In looking at this I could see that Socrates was looking more at the court as a court than a theatre. I really wasn’t sure why Socrates was doing this because it would pretty much ensure his death. What I came up with is that Socrates did not want to fall into the unjust role of the defendant in the court of Athens, but he wanted to be honest and truthful in his defense in order to stay pious.
-oskar strautmanis
On the day that we were to go to the Met, the museum regretfully closed before we were able to see the painting "The Death of Socrates." Fortunately enough, we were able to see the painting on the projector the following Monday, which, although less impressive, still managed to get the job done. While examining the painting, the class discussed what was happening in the picture, and how the characters seemed to feel in the scene.
In section 41 of The Trial and Death of Socrates, Socrates describes his willingness to die to the jury, saying "It would be a wonderful way for me to spend my time whenever I met Palamedes and Ajax, the son of Telamon, and any other of the men of old who died through an unjust conviction, to compare my experience with theirs...Most important, I could spend my time testing and examining people here, as I do here, as to who among them is wise, and who thinks he is, but is not." Socrates, rather than fearing death, is actually accepting it as a possiblity, if not an inevitability. In fact, it seems as if he's almost looking forward to it; it would be a new experience for his life as a philosopher.
When I first looked at the painting of Socrates' death, I noticed Socrates' pose, with one hand reaching for the goblet of hemlock, and the other in a position suggesting that he is giving a philosophical argument pre-mortem. It gives one the impression that Socrates cares deeply about his philosophy, enough that he's not only willing to die for it, but that he's going to keep on practicing philosophy while he dies, and possibly even after he is dead. And the quote to the Athenian jury says that exactly: that he's not going to let being dead put a damper on his wisdom-grilling and other philosophical activities. Wherever Socrates goes, he's going to be a philosopher.
-Louis L.
On friday we were lucky enough to have a guest speaker from Yale come and join our class. Mr.Devecka helped clariffy a lot of points in the Apology that might have been mind boggling for us, students. He talked about how the Greek court worked in that time and how the only component in the law system was the jury. The jury was made up of poor to medium class men, about five hundred of them, and enjoyed the drama of the court. They enjoyed the drama because the begging and pleading of the defendant makes them feel important and they show pity to the defendant.
But the quote that confused me was, "What is suitable for a poor benefactor who needs leisure to exhort you? Nothing is more suitable, gentlemen, than for such a man to be fed in the Prytaneum, much more suitable for him than for any one of you who has won a victory at Olympia with a pair or a team of horses. The Olympian victor makes you think yourself happy; I make you be happy. Besides, he does not need food, but I do. So if I must make a just assessment of what I deserve, I assess this: free meals in the Prytaneum" (36c). I found it confusing that Socrates actually states this, I didn't know if he was joking or if he was funny. So naturally I try and think of an explanation, but once I couldn't find one good explanation I decided to ask our guestspeaker, Mr.Devecka.
He said that the reason for Socrates' quote is that he doesn't take the jury or this case seriously. Instead he comes up with this absurd assessment for himself to show that he doesn't care to the jury. The jury then got outraged because he was mocking them and not pleading for mercy.
Last Friday, Mr. Devecka came in to our class as a guest speaker. Mr. Devecka had taught the class many things about the Apology and Socrates. He said that the court system in the Modern Day is different from that of Ancient Greece. In Ancient Greece, there was pretty much only a jury and no one and nothing else. So, as a result, the jury decides and controls everything. Mr. Devecka also told us that the court system during the times of Anciecnt Greece was like a show or play. He said that those who were indicated can get out of trouble easily as the jury was easily influenced by sympathy. All the indicated had to do was to have a really appealing speech and had to look helpless. In addition to the theater like court, Mr. Devecka also told us that laws were useless and weren't fond of in the courts, which was quite ironic. He said that words made up by the speaker mattered the most as words make the reality and laws did not.
A part that in the text that had interested me was 36a. In that part of the text, Socrates claims that he was surprised not by the fact that he was convicted of being guilty but by the fact that there was such a close amount of votes between the 2 judgments. According to Socrates, if there was a switch of 30 votes, he would've been aquitted of Meletus's charges. Socrates has expected the difference in the amount of votes to have been much larger.
The lesson that Mr. Devecka had given has helped me understand this interesting part of the text. In the lesson, Mr. Devecka had said that words were the reality and lwas and truthful reasonings weren't. Mr. Devecka also said that the jury was easily influenced by sympathy. In the text, Socrates had given his argument with truthful reasoning and applied laws. Socrates, however, did not make use of craeting words to defend himself, and did not put on a show of helplessness by bringing in his children and wife and having them dressed in rags to defend himself and to convince the jury to aquitt him. So, it can be concluded that Socrates knew he was going to die by defending himself in that way and therefore, he was suiciding. That's why he was surprised to see the small difference int he amount of votes.
While Mr. Deveck was talking i felt that i got most of what i know by what he explained. He was able to tell why Socrates was on trial and gave us th method of th greek madness. He use the analogy of comparing the trial to a play and gave examples as to why it was so compatible. This is what made me understand not only apology but Socrates even more.
In lines 34 c through 35 d i did not entirly get what Socrates was trying to do in this speech. What i did understand at the time was that Socrates seems to be pleading for his life. (if you could call that pleading.) He talks of how he is a citizen and how he was brought here on false charges. He then goes on to say that he could have brough his family to persuade them but choose not to which was a way of saying he should not need to persuade them and that they should know the right thing to do. This angered the jury because they wanted to see the legendary Socrates go to his knees. Instead he insulted them He was to follow a certian procedure but took his own coarse of action. He didnt even write a speech as an actual apology. In the end they see this as arrogance and that night have convinced them to give him the death penalty.
How exactly did all of this understanding spawn from Deveck's lecture? It was his analogy. When he compared the trial to a play it all made sense. Socrates was to play the guilty mortified criminal. Instead he took his own approach. The scripters who usually write a speech for crimals was not hired by Socrates. It was like you are to play Romeo and instead you play MacBeth. The greeks are incredably fond of their customs and this to them was unacceptible. So what i uderstood was why was Socrates so hated in court and what he did wrong.
Post a Comment