Humans have studied rhetoric for thousands of years.

The task of dissecting written and

spoken forms of persuasion is an art in itself. Plato’s infamous Apology falls under frequent

analysis and the persuasive efforts of Socrates receive mixed criticism as to their effectiveness in

sparing the philosopher’s life; however, how can one be certain that the goal of Socrates’

argumentation was to avoid death? Could the interpretation Plato gives of the defense be an

argument for a much more profound claim? The written accounts of Socrates and his methods of

argument show that much of the effectiveness of his rhetoric depended upon him guiding his

audience with inquiries and letting them see the limitations of their paradigms through their own

rational thought process; with this observation in mind, and the questions posed concerning the

intended result of the defense, or, more accurately, the interpretation of the defense, one gains a

new perspective regarding the arguments Socrates, according to Plato, made, and in turn the

argument Plato constructs through recounting the event.

A clear comprehension on the motives behind Plato’s authoring the trial starts with an

outline of the surrounding circumstances. To accurately describe the context of Apology, an

overview of the cultural backgrounds and norms is necessary. Historians have established that

the actual trial took place in 399 B.C.E.. In the years preceding, Athens fought against Sparta in

the Peloponnesian War, and the victors forced the Athenians to succumb to the reign of a

Spartan-minded oligarchy. From this loss, one expects a resentment in the Athenian citizen

common to that of those defeated in other historical wars. The war inflicted damage to the

communal pride and the resultant independent pride which forms through identification with the

surrounding society. Another prevalent sentiment felt throughout Athens stemmed from religious

beliefs.
 Most Greek faith oriented around praising the traditional Olympian gods in order to bring

about events necessary for a happy, prosperous life. This faith also included grave consequences

when irreverence or ill-practiced worship took place. So one could justly hypothesize that the

city sympathized with the belief that some unfavorable act or impious happening caused the

misfortunes of and following the Peloponnesian War. It just so happens that an impious event

occurred and was connected to the then prominent figure, Alcibiades.

On the night before the planned Athenian conquest of Sicily, someone vandalized the

multiple hermae, sculptures of gods, throughout the city. (Hermae were used as boundary

markers and substituted for signposts, and because of their theistic depictions, were also viewed

as protection against evil forces.) Acts against the hermae were considered acts against those

which the hermae symbolized, and since the hermae usually symbolized the god Hermes, any

sort of vandalism towards the sculptures exuded immense impiety and virtually begged the

god(s) to smite the city. Unfortunately for him, political adversaries within the state pushed the

accusation and trial of Alcibiades for these unspeakable acts, and eventually agreed on his guilt

and sentenced him to death. Upon hearing this, for Alcibiades was not present at his own trial, he

fled to Sparta and advised the country’s military in conquering the Athenians. After the war,

Athens most likely did not view Alcibiades in the kindest light, to say the least.

One sees the relevance of the Alcibiades incident in concordance with the trial of

Socrates in the knowledge that Alcibiades was one of Socrates’ great affiliates and this fact was

not a secret among Athenians. Along with his association with Alcibiades, Socrates’ affiliation

with other young men disrupted the ease of the older and more ideologically conditioned citizens

not because he preached different faiths, but urged people to question the ones already in place,

and that in itself resonated impiety. All of these war-time and religious happenings and the
impact they had on the Athenian citizen contribute to the rhetorical situation, but only in part.

One must also consider the light in which Plato viewed Socrates, and the impact Plato intended

to make, his argument, with his interpretation of the trial. Plato followed under Socrates, and

undoubtedly held him in high regards. The final verdict on the philosopher’s fate qualifies as the

occasion upon which Plato seems to have felt the need to recount the trial, or the exigence of said

occasion. So what’s to be said of Plato’s intentions?

Evidence shows that Plato portrays Socrates not necessarily defending his life. “To fear

death, gentlemen, is no other than to think oneself wise when one is not,” (Apology 29a)1. This

statement helps gain a perspective on Socrates’ alleged ideologies. Plato’s records even indicate

Socrates may have even yearned for death, and much less simply not feared it; “[Athenian

countrymen] aren’t aware in what sense genuine philosophers are verging on death” (Phaedo

64b)2. History widely accepts Socrates as a philosopher, or “disciple of philosophy”, and with

this notion and Plato’s portrayal, one can conclude that Socrates truly did not fear death, for that

would defy his own logic, and accounts of Socrates provide no room for hypocrisy on the

philosopher’s part; the nature of his defense and his acceptance of his sentence hold truth to this

assumption.

Plato starts Apology with Socrates asking the jury to excuse his lingo because he lacks

familiarity with court language. He then proclaims, “I think this is very difficult...I am fully

aware of how difficult it is,”; “this” and “it” being the task of negating the slanders made about

him. (The formal charges brought against Socrates were impiety and corrupting the youth).

Socrates recognizes the probabilities against him in proving his innocence, not because of his

genuine guilt, but because of the kairos, or lack thereof. Socrates tries to unveil the unruly

1 Grube translation (Plato The Complete Works)

2 Gallop translation (Phaedo Clarendon Plato Series)
reasons behind his unpopularity by explaining his quest to find “the oracle irrefutable,” who

declared Socrates the wisest among men (Apology 22a). Plato’s Socrates explains his experience

and even acknowledges the disdain which a portion of the populace holds for him and professes

that he, “should be surprised if [he] could rid [the jury] of so much slander in so short a time,”

(Apology 24a). With the assumption that Socrates was well-aware of his unfortunate situation

and his probable demise, the rest of his defense serves as his own testament to his ideologies, and

the possible argument by Plato.

Socrates proceeds with question/answer dialogue, addressing Meletus, one of his three

accusers, in a series of inquiries concerning the charges formally brought against the defendant.

This familiar form of guiding one to establishing claims, and then using those claims as warrants

for later claims, beautifully exemplifies the mechanisms of epichireimes and argumentation. He

uses Meletus’ own answers to uncover the fallacies and anomalies within the accuser’s ideology;

“You cannot be believed, Meletus, even, I think, by yourself.” (Apology 26e). Socrates doesn’t

focus on proving his innocence through memories and instances of his own actions, but by

crippling the credibility of his accuser, and in turn, nullifying the allegations. He leaves a

summation of Meletus’ rationale and its contradictory nature to the jury’s own judgement. This

action provides insight into the philosophies which guided Socrates; “I do not think, men of

Athens, that it requires a prolonged defense to prove that I am not guilty of the charges in

Meletus’ deposition, but [the dialogue between Socrates and Meletus] is sufficient.” (Apology

28a). He leaves the verdict to the jurors’ own judgement based on the facts which he has

presented. If one were to read this exchange with no contextual sentiment, then the error in

Meletus’ logic is clearly seen.

 But alas, Plato’s Socrates knew that logic, unfortunately, does not make up the entirety of

argumentation: as Socrates says to the jurors, “I am very unpopular with many people. This will

be my undoing, if I am undone,” (Apology 28a). Notice that Socrates still leaves room for the

unknown. Plato’s interpretations of Socrates compose the latter as a man of logic, a man of

rationalization. Logically, the cross-examination should’ve sufficed, and because Socrates is a

man of reason, he leaves his defense after rationally discrediting Meletus, because logically, this

strategy would’ve more than proved his lack of guilt. Through this, Plato’s intentions start to

surface. He portrays Socrates as a man of principle, who does not stray in action from what he

preaches, and this image helps construct a framework for the way the proposed ideology works

in certain conditions, such as a court. Socrates does not try to evoke emotional response to sway

his audience, not because he is incapable, but because his ideology, the internal consistency

within his mind which shaped all aspects of his life, simply does not call for it. He does not fear

death, and he does not accept bodily responses, such as emotions, as viable sources of deduction.

Imagine trying to explain a math problem to someone, and the pupil doesn’t particularly

like you, the instructor, for some arbitrary reason. This provides the student with a negative

attitude while undertaking math problems. You, the teacher, would not think to appeal to them

emotionally in order for them to better understand mathematics. Why should that make a

difference as to whether or not 2+2=4? It’s not that changing the emotion to that of the pupil’s

liking would not help the situation, but the concept seems trivial to you, because you know that

no matter what emotion is being felt, the capacity for mathematical comprehension will not

change. Socrates knows the soundness of his logic, and sees the use of pathos as obsolete.

Through his, or more accurately, Plato’s eyes, the ability to comprehend logic does not sway with

emotional change, and for the jurors, if the emotion is strong enough, then logic does not sway
the emotion, no matter the validity or absence thereof. Even though this could be seen as

rhetorically bad, that is a matter concerning questions of evaluation. Does the quality and morals

of Socrates’ argument take precedent over his delivery and choice of not using pathos? Did Plato

want the readers of Apology to feel some sort of emotion when reading how strident Socrates

was with his principles? This specific argument could take up an entirely different paper, so the

questions of evaluation will remain questions.

Socrates follows his logos by adopting the voice of a rebutter, an example of

prosopopoiea. “Someone might say: ‘Are you not ashamed, Socrates, to have followed the kind

of occupation that has led to your being now in danger of death?’” (Apology 28b). He then

continues by answering this expected counter argument. The defendant advocates that if a path

chosen is deemed virtuous by the traveler, than nothing, especially death, should cause him to

stray from what he knows as virtuous and true. Socrates warrants that a good life is that of

examining the world around you, and his life was, “attached to this city by the god...as upon a

great noble horse which was somewhat sluggish...and needed to be stirred up.” (Apology 30e)

He does not show remorse for his chosen actions and their results. Socrates, unlike the jurors,

sees not that his actions are the cause of death, but the reactions to his actions are. This

exemplifies the potential pathology that emerges from ideologies and identifications with them.

The average Athenian citizen: I fear impiety, for fear of an unpleasant life and

afterlife. I know that there are some who are impious. I also know that if I

consciously let these people continue their impiety, then that would be

impious on my own part, and I fear impiety, so something must be done to

stunt these blasphemers, perhaps an execution. Socrates realizes this perspective

which so many of the jurors hold, but he also feels that he has committed no crimes. If one’s
done no wrong, and does not fear death, than why should shame be brought about when the

perceived best courses of action end in death? Would it not be the equivalent of one’s actions

resulting in anything else unknown? This section of the defense continues the composition of

certain aspects of the perspectives of Plato’s Socrates. Along with the call for people to use

rationale and logic, Plato also says something about the danger of ideology. That “the wisest”

man, providing sound logic and living a life of virtuous intent, be brought to trial and sentenced

to death by his peers says something about an unpleasant outcome, and perhaps folly, of

ideologies. The writer makes this point and the response to the hypothetical rebuttal to help

strengthen the proclamations on life and death, which ultimately reflect in our behaviors and

attitudes, and show the consistent logic within the ideology, which for philosophers is what truly

matters and what Plato intends to instill with Apology.

After answering his conjured counter, Socrates continues to provide evidence for his

conviction in seeking true virtue by bringing his poverty to attention. He is a man who has

eroded the physical and emotional needs of material living, thus demonstrated in his lack of

possessions. The impermanence of physical things does not elude Socrates, and this knowledge

determines the philosopher’s life style. Plato’s Socrates truly held virtue of the soul in the highest

regard. He knows the inevitably of the end of life, and that obtaining an identity through

possessions is illogical. With this, Plato also points out that the ideology he endorses can be

attained by someone in any condition, be it in riches or rags, and shows the justness of said

ideology, because of it’s universal application.

Furthermore, Socrates’ lack of requisite payment for his lectures put him apart from other

such orators or teachers. The presence of ideological retaliation shows itself with this fact. The

truth, as Socrates knows it, is so good and seems so valid and obviously important that he freely
shares it with anyone willing to listen and think. It calls for putting into question the very

ideology which views it. People, or rather the ideologies which pervade them, see Socrates

pressing his method of viewing the world, not for a fee, which testifies to the seemingly genuine

truth in his perceptions. Such circumstances do not provide for a happy response from the

ideological norms, and the people they govern, in question.

After the covering the main aspects of his defense, Socrates follows suit and leaves, “[the

jury] and the god to judge [him] in a way that will be best for [him] and for [the jury].” (Apology

35d). He provides the logic behind his innocence, and leaves it for the jurors to accept or

decline. Again, not adding emotional appeals, for his paradigm does not call for it. The jury finds

the defendant guilty and Meletus proposes a death sentence. Plato’s Socrates upholds the

ideology behind his defense and life style: he knows not how to defend the request for death,

because his intentions are and have been good, and what punishment rightly accompanies such

living? He proposes free meals, and rightly so. Socrates has devoted his life to the city. He has

been the beacon of rational examination, and he has initiated the awakening of the Athenians to

the flaws in their perceptions/ideologies. If anything, he should be rewarded for attempting to

release the citizens from their lives which, from his paradigm, are devoid of true meaning. This

seems to be sarcasm, but this proposal follows the internal consistency of Socrates’ logic. He has

done no wrong, and will surely not condemn himself to a punishment undeserving. If a

punishment must be sentenced, then a return for the efforts made toward bettering the city would

not only suffice, but seem right and just.

Yet Socrates knows that such a sentence is improbable, so he continues to propose a small

fine, but does not acknowledge the validity in the proposed sentence. Plato’s Socrates, “is not

accustomed to think that [he deserves] any penalty,” (Apology 38b). If Socrates truly strived to
live through strictly rational thinking and examination, then this would be the expected response

to the question of sentencing. Intrinsically, Socrates holds no guilt of anything, so the fact that he

stood trial and was found guilty shows the initially unfavorable presuppositions which brought

him forth. Plato even reveals the accusers’ recognition of the unjust nature of the trial;

“Anytus...said to [the jury] that either [Socrates] should not have been brought [to trial] in the

first place, or that now [Socrates is on trial], [the jury] cannot avoid executing [him],” (Apology

29c). With this acknowledgment, and the failure of acknowledging the logic and reason within

the jury which gave way to the trial’s existence, Plato’s Socrates seems to know that whatever he

proposes will most likely be futile. The fact that he’s there in the first place does not compute

through the ideology of the philosopher, and his defense, through the same ideology, does not

compute with the jurors and their ideologies. What appears as Plato’s argument continues to

develop. Socrates does not beg for his life, because, as he’s stated before, why should he fear

death? The jury’s decisions in response to the philosopher’s defense exhibit the unfortunate side

effects of emotional/physical ideologies, and the resultant skewed rationalization or utter lack of

rationalization all together. And amidst this cloud of illogical fog, Socrates pursues reason in his

defense, shining a philosophical light on not just the man, but the ideology which pervades him,

and continues through the author, Plato.

Based on the analysis of the warrants behind Socrates, Plato, and the jurors, one sees that

the instance of the trial, in essence, omits logic initially, and conclusively omits logic throughout

the proceedings. Plato portrays Socrates to be a philosopher, and a man guided by reason.

Socrates’ defense was not ill-prepared, but precisely what one should expect from him, based on

other accounts of his philosophies. The “god” that Socrates takes into account that the jurors do

not is logic, or reason, and his defense’s ideological consistency exemplifies his portrayed true
understanding and adherence to the rules of reason. Plato’s Apology serves as an ode to his

former master and to his teachings and philosophies, but also serves as a reminder of the

potential development of pathology within ideologies. When one takes into account the large

contrast in genuine presupposition between Socrates and the jury, one can observe the

phenomenon which is ideology, and their tangible yet intangible existence. These ideologies are,

in some ways, more powerful and persuasive than the people through which they are revealed.