I said in this thread, Alexander the Great was not Great to expect a pit thread on Socrates’s Persecution, and here it is. Now I also said that I may decide to put it in Great Debates since I will be debating with anyone who disagrees, but I figured this will also involve a lot of hate and ranting towards those persecutors, so I decided to keep it in the BBQ Pit (Moderators, you can move this thread to “Great Debates” if you would like and I won’t be “unhappy”).
Now Socrates was convicted of three charges, ‘corrupting the youth’, ‘committing treason against Athens’, and ‘blaspheming the gods’, all charges I believe Socrates was innocent of:
Corrupting the Youth:
Basically, this charge was about his teachings causing his pupils to go out and do bad things. Alcibiades really betrayed Athens by having sex with the Queen of Sparta, and I believe fought for the Persians, etc. I will not go further on what his pupils did because I am not highly knowledgeable on that and don’t want to state an incorrect fact. But I completely understand what’s going on. They think that Socrates was the one who caused his students to start questioning democracy and fighting for other countries.
The problem is that all Socrates did was teach the Socratic Method and how to think by questioning things. He never taught his students what to think. It is essentially denying his “Freedom of Speech”. He was a very wise man, and what upsets me the most about his conviction for this was that the Athenians got all mad at for him just because they didn’t like what they heard. Just because Socrates’s teachings sometimes contradicted with their beliefs, they had to get all mad at him and use this lame excuse of “corrupting the youth”. And we must not forget, it’s not like he only taught a few students, Alcibiades, Critias, Plato, Xenophon, etc. that we know of. It’s safe to assume that he had many more students than this. So the idea that all of his students turned out “bad” is ridiculous because they were only a very small fraction of his students. The Socratic Method was like a hammer; Socrates gave it to his students and whether they use it for good or bad is their decision. Socrates also warned them and told them not to question built-in customs, told Plato to educate his students to be good democratic students, and look up to the gods (as specified by Plato) so it’s not like he just gave them the hammer without any warnings for how to use it and they ran out and started hitting people with it. This is ridiculous. They are accusing Socrates of “corrupting the youth”, but what they fail to realize (listen to) is that Socrates never told anyone what to do. All he did was teach them how to think using the Socratic Method of questioning “everything” (those quotation marks represent that he really didn’t mean “everything” as he did mention not to question built-in customs). And look at the good his students did. Plato went out and used Socrates’s teachings to build a very successful school, while Xenophon was able to use Socrates’s teachings to affect his military performance positively (I’ll get into that more for “Committing Treason”. So it’s not like, all of his students only did bad either. Yes, some of his students did misbehave but it’s them that should be persecuted for it, not Socrates who was just a teacher of the Socratic Method. It’s not Socrates’s fault his students made bad decisions using the Socratic Method, and Socrates shouldn’t have to baby-sit them. Anyone who thinks Socrates corrupted the youth of Athens does not understand Socrates’s teachings fully.
And an irrelevant thing I just wanted to say: Socrates was actually a really great man. He was able to win the hand of a rich women, Xanitippe. That’s very remarkable because normally rich women only married rich men, and Socrates was poor that taught for free (that should just tell you how good his character was); it is safe to assume that Xanitippe really liked Socrates’s character and personality or she would not have married him. Even though she verbally and physically abused him, Socrates actually like the idea of having an abusive spouse so he could learn to reason with her, and after reasoning with her, Xanitippe would never abuse him back. So, Socrates really had to have great character and a good personality as he was able to marry a rich woman.
Committing Treason Against Athens:
We actually had to write an essay on why you think Socrates did or did not commit treason against the city-state Athens. They also gave us the specific definition of “treason” for us to use: “Violation of allegiance toward one’s country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one’s country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.”
I’ll put my essay up, but be warned that it’s probably not any good. But first I’ll just reason naturally.
It breaks down into two things they thought he did: opposing democracy and aiding the enemies of Athens. If you look at the definition of “treason”, you can see that this is what he was convicted for in terms of committing treason.
I do not see how he was trying to dismantle democracy honestly. There is really no evidence other than Critias saying that he was a student of Socrates, and that he believed that democracy was not a good idea and taught Critias to believe the same thing. But is Critias really a reliable source? That d*uchebag did so many bad things and really betrayed Athens that he is not a very credible source. I do not have my notes with me, so I I don’t know what exactly Critias did. I would have to pull out my notes that are downstairs, and I really don’t want to go downstairs right now while in the middle of pitting Socrates. But I do know, that he really did horrible stuff against Athens. What’s more reliable is Plato. Even though he did support the Thirty Tyrants for a few months, he stopped afterwards and realized how bad they were. Other than that, he was a great student of Socrates, and you have to take into account that he made a mistake and realized what he did was wrong and fixed it quickly (well, relatively). As mentioned above, Plato was told by Socrates that he should educate his children to be good democratic students. Now this single piece of evidence may not be enough to prove that he supported democracy, but is clearly more reliable than what Critias had said. But the main problem is that aside from this there is really no evidence to support that Socrates opposed democracy. Pericles will go on about how his nephew started disobeying him and arguing with him on everything as soon as he started attending Socrates’s school, but remember, Socrates only taught people the Socratic Method. And he didn’t tell people to oppose or support democracy. He may have told Plato to educate his students to believe in democracy, but remember, Socrates did not believe in telling people what to believe. And really, it’s one’s own opinion about what kind of government is good. Even if one believes democracy is not a good idea, that’s not a good enough reason to persecute them. And again we hit the idea that there’s simply not reliable evidence that Socrates did not support democracy. There’s no proof. So him not believing in democracy leading him to commit treason against the city-state, Athens is a very weak link. In fact, it’s not even a link; it’s a lame excuse.
By the way, this connects to “corrupting the youth” because people believed he betrayed Athens by corrupting the youth. And people also thought that due to all of Socrates’s students going out and doing bad things and fighting for other civilizations/city-states, that it was Socrates to blame for committing treason. They thought that he purposefully taught his students to support Sparta and the Thirty Tyrants. Again, the same thing that has been said many times in this pit threat can be said again. Socrates never told anyone what to do; all he did was teach the Socratic Method. And I’m not sure particularly how one could use the Socratic Method to aid the enemies of Athens. Maybe by using it to question democracy and start believing that Spartan government is better. But the problem is that Socrates teaching the Socratic Method to his students is not the thing to blame for his students’ behavior. It’s the user’s fault. It’s like buying a gun. Now, you’re not going to convict the gun supplier because someone used your gun to kill people. It’s the user’s fault. And, in terms of aiding the enemies, for the record, Xenophon had a carrier in military tactics. He said that not only did Socrates not try to imply that Xenophon should not pursue a career in the military, but also that Socrates was a big help to him in his career. If Socrates had intentions of betraying Athens, it is safe to assume that he would try to manipulate Xenophon in his military career. To think Socrates committed treason by attempting to aid the enemies is a terrible reason; actually, it’s not even a reason. It’s an assumption that Socrates manipulated his pupils to aid the enemies of Athens by the use of the Socratic Method. He may have taught the Socratic Method, but he never told his pupils what to do with it. And I’m really tired of mentioning this, but this is really the whole point. He did not tell people what to do.
Oh, the people of Athens started getting all sensitive that the “Allegory of the Cave” had anything to do with Athens democracy just because he speaks about a “darkness” that is in most city-states (my Allegory of the Cave text is also downstairs, so I can’t get the exact excerpt). They thought this was about Athens. What they don’t want to understand is that this can be interpreted in many ways. It is up to the reader on how to interpret this reading. The Athenians thought that Socrates was attacking Athenian democracy with this. A word of advice for the Athenians: Notice how it says, “In most city-states,…” He’s not targeting specifically Athens. Yeah, it “could be Athens” (In our mock trial, the guy who played Socrates’s cross-examiner kept on trying to ask, “It could be Athens, right?”) based on how you interpret it, but that’s only a “could”. There’s no specific proof that says he was against democracy. This text does not prove anything and you could use this text to accuse the author of it of anything. And we have already discussed how there’s not evidence of him going against Athenian democracy, so I will not talk about this anymore.
Here’s my essay (optional read):
Xenophon never heard of Socrates teaching his students to go against the city of Athens. Socrates did not commit treason against the city-state Athens as going against important Athenian beliefs and values was not the purpose of his teachings and he had no intent to support the enemies of Athens. The wise man was never against Athenian democracy and did not blaspheme the gods, and the Athenians very much valued these two beliefs.
Socrates was not guilty of treason against Athens because his teachings were never intended to oppose fundamental Athenian beliefs and values. Plato was motivated by Socrates to education children to be good, democratic students, so Socrates was never a disbeliever of Athenian democracy. On top of that, Socrates never taught his students to question built customs, and taught them to look up to the gods. Xenophon did not view Socrates as irreligious and was never taught by him to disobey Athens. He was a religious man and did not think he was above the gods, but instead praised them. The teachings of Socrates were not proposed to oppose democracy, blaspheme the gods, or question fundamental customs and therefore, did not commit treason against Athens.
The wise Athenian teacher did not support any enemies of Athens which again proves that he did not commit treason against his city-state. Plato claimed that Socrates was against the Thirty Tyrants, a group of people who committed crimes against the city of Athens. The Thirty Tyrants were a serious enemy of Athens, and Socrates did not support them. There is also no evidence of Socrates aiding the Persians or any other civilization that fought against Athens. Xenophon fought for the Athenians and actually saved some of their lives; he was interested in tactics and warfare. Socrates didn’t have any impact on him in regards to military tactics, and Socrates never told Xenophon to not pursue a career in military. Xenophon actually found Socrates do be very helpful in his career. If Socrates had an intention to aid enemies of Athens, he would have influenced Xenophon’s career negatively, but Xenophon said that Socrates was very helpful and didn’t tell him to not serve in the military. There is no evidence that implies that Socrates supported Athens’ opponents which further proves Socrates’s innocence of committing treason.
(OH, I FORGOT! MY CONCLUSION IS AT SCHOOL! NEVER MIND!"
CONCLUSION MISSING; CONCLUSION MISSING; CONCLUSION MISSING; CONCLUSION MISSING
Blaspheming the gods:
I really do not have to go into this much. It is clear he did not such thing. There is actually sufficient evidence that he was a religious man, and there is absolutely no evidence to prove he blasphemed the gods.
Plato mentioned that Socrates said he looks up to the gods and praises them. Other student(s) of his said that they did not view Socrates as irreligious and that Socrates himself did not believe he was above the gods. And even though this is not really a proof, just witness’s view points, there is no reason to believe that he blasphemed the gods. Maybe he didn’t believe in god (I’m pretty sure he did), but what makes you think that he blasphemed them, (Athenians, I would ask if they were alive)? I just do not understand where they made this garbage up from. But there’s not a single piece of evidence that shows even a slight possibility of him blaspheming the gods. And really, even almost all modern day believers of Socrates being guilty believe that he did not blaspheme the gods. There is simply no evidence. There was a little bit for corrupting the youth and committing treason (which I refuted), but there’s not even that crappy little bit for this. I think they just assumed that Socrates was using the Socratic Method to question god. But this is only an inference. And in court, just making just arguments is not the way to prove someone guilty. You need proof to prove someone guilty. It may be enough to convince the common public, but for the persecution to be valid, you need a proof. And this is really not even a “just” argument. There is actually some evidence from witnesses of Socrates believing in them. To prove that Socrates believed in god is actually more doable, then what they convicted him of.
So, that wraps up my pit thread. If anyone would like to debate with me, feel free to! :):D;)
