Analysis Of Benjamin Jowett’s Interpretation On Plato’s The Apology
Benjamin Jowett’s Plato's The Apology gives his interpretation of the dialogue of Socrates makes at the trial in which he was charged with not identifying the gods acknowledged by the state, creating new gods, and demeaning the youth of Athens. Socrates' speech, however, is by no means an 'apology' in our current understanding of the word. The name of the discussion originates from the Greek 'apologia', which interprets as a defense, or a speech made in justification. Thus, in The Apology, Socrates efforts to defend himself and his behavior and not to make an apology for it.
For the most part, Socrates expresses in a very simple, casual manner. He explained that he has no knowledge with the ruling of the courts and that he will instead communicate in the manner to which he is familiar with by righteousness and straightforwardness. He gave details that his conduct stems from a prediction by the prophecy at Delphi claimed that he was the most intelligent of all men. Identifying his lack of knowledge in most experienced judicious concerns, Socrates determined that he must be cleverer than other men only in that he knows that he knows nothing. In order to spread this uncharacteristic knowledge, Socrates enlightens that he reflected it his duty to question fictional 'intelligent' men and to uncover their false perception as lack of knowledge. These actions produced him much respect amongst the youth of Athens, but much hatred and resentment from the people he embarrassed. He cited their hatred as the motive for him being put on trial.
Socrates then continued to cross-examine Meletus, the man mainly legally responsible for bringing Socrates before the jury. This is the only incident in The Apology of the argument or cross-examination, which is so vital to most Platonic discussions. His exchange with Meletus, however, is an unfortunate instance of this technique, as it seems more focused towards humiliating Meletus than arriving at the fact.
In a well-known passage, Socrates compares himself to a painful sluggish horse which is the Athenian state. Without him, Socrates assertions, the state is legally responsible to float into a deep sleep, but through his influence, as infuriating as it may be to some, it can be challenged into a useful and righteous accomplishment.
At the end of the book, Socrates was found guilty by a slim margin and was asked to suggest a punishment. Socrates amusingly recommends that if he were to get what he deserves, he should be privileged with a great meal for being of such service to the state. On a more solemn note, he discards prison and banishment, proposing possibly paying a fine. When the jury denies his recommendation and punishes him to death, Socrates seems unmoved and agrees with the verdict with the statement that no one but the gods know what takes place after death and so it would be unwise to fear what one does not know. He also informed the jurymen who voted against him that in quieting their criticizer rather than paying attention to him, they have impaired themselves much more than they have harmed him.
Benjamin Jowett’s interpretation on Plato’s The Apology, in my opinion, is that the focus reflects a representation for the violation of freedom of speech, Socrates simplifies his way of life as a philosopher and protecting the effectiveness of philosophy for political awareness of life and death. Furthermore, the argument would be that resting on no evidence there can still be serious counter accusations against a person.
