A Jurors Perspective in the Case against Socrates Research Paper

A Jurors Perspective in the Case against Socrates - Research Paper Example Personally, I find nothing wrong with being inquisitive. Inquisitiveness has been the source of great knowledge for a long time. The fact that Socrates has been inquisitive, enquiring the earth and the clouds constitute no crime. If his chosen way of life does not harm anyone, and no one can confirm that he harmed anyone by being curious, then I find no fault at that. Of concern is the substance of which he enquires about. Contrary, Socrates has confessed to the things he enquires. He has said that he enquires about the presence and the nature of knowledge in selected persons. This, he has confessed, is to try to refute the claims of the Delphin oracle, which he claims elevates him as the wisest man in Athens. First, this raises the question of whether it is true that the oracle construed that he was the wisest man. If it is true, then such an important decree from the Athenian god Apollo should have been made known to all Athenians. The fact that this did not happen, is interpretabl e that the accused has put words in the mouth of a god. By claiming that the gods have recognized him as the wisest man, Socrates undermines the power of the Athenian gods by elevating himself as superhuman. He elevates himself to the level that he converses with the gods, though he is not a priest. In this issue, the accused is guilty of heresy and slander against the gods of Athena. His comparison of himself with Heracles is an insult to all Athenians and their integrity. It is an insult to the time-honored belief about the gods and the heroes of our history (Colaiaco 62). Second is the claim that he teaches his inquisitive lifestyle to others. In his defence, the accused has pointed out that he has never been a teacher. He does not take money from anyone in exchange for his perceived teachings. Therefore, if anyone goes to him, it is of his own accord. The teachings gained thereof that are one’s own desire. However, the place where the lessons are offered becomes very diff icult for the citizens of Athena to decide whether to attend or not. The accused has confessed of a tendency to start his teachings in public, where people gather for other purposes. This does not leave any choice to those in such areas, whether to listen or leave. This is so because there are in such places in pursuit of their own affair. Additionally, the accused has a tendency to stop people on the way and start questioning them. This constitutes a disruption of public peace. He propagates dissension and enmity among the people. If one is a teacher, he should let his students come to him on their own will. This is not in the interests of the state. The questioning of people regarding the level of wisdom is also demeaning. This is quite serious when it is considered that some of the subjects of the defendant’s questioning are citizens of high ranking. These people have made a significant contribution to the advancement of the nation. Branding these people as lacking wisdom and knowledge is a dishonor and a disparagement of their good work and sacrifices. On these charges, Socrates is guilty. The next charge brought against Socrates was the claim that he misguides the youth. His accusers have not explained what constitutes misguiding the youth. Using the little information provided to the court by the accusers, this is only interpretable to mean that the teaching of inquisitiveness taught by the accused to the public.