In Plato's
Apology, Socrates gives several reasons why weeping and wailing before the
judges in order to attempt to avoid the charges or reduce the sentence would prove the charges
against him. A crucial passage for understanding this is:
For if, O men of Athens, by force of persuasion and entreaty, I could overpower your
oaths, then I should be teaching you to believe that there are no gods, and convict myself, in
my own defence, of not believing in them.
In classical
Greek , persuasion was thought to occur by appeals from ethos (the character of the speaker),
logos (reason), and pathos (by means of swaying the emotions of the audience). Socrates is
making the argument that pathetic appeals are morally wrong.
He believes that
it is the duty of judges to make impartial judgement based on reasoning. Pathetic appeals
distort this process by asking judges to put aside justice itself and instead react based on
emotions. This is precisely the opposite of seeking truth and wisdom.
Socrates believes that he has been divinely authorized to seek a certain type of wisdom
He possesses a divine sign or daimonion that forbids him from acting in an
impious way. Part of his religious duty is to seek knowledge and act as a gadfly to Athens,
forcing others to seek truth as well by his questioning, For him to abandon this mission out of
self-interest would be to disobey divine commands thus proving the charge of impiety.
Also, Socrates believes that the genuinely philosophical or pious do not fear death and
so for him to plead with the judges to avoid death would also confirm the charge of impiety.
Finally, manipulating the judges by emotional appeals would set a bad example for the youth
watching the trial, confirming another one of the charges against him.
No comments:
Post a Comment