(18, A) Anyone who is not trying to corrupt is not a deliberate corrupter. (17, IC) I am not trying to corrupt people. (16, A) Anyone who only does things he believes will improve souls is not trying to corrupt them. (15, IC) I am only doing things I believe will improve souls. (14, P) I challenge self-satisfied ignorance about such matters (13, P) I promote inquiry about justice and other virtues (12, P) I think that self-satisfied ignorance about such matters is unhealthy for souls (11, P) I think that inquiry about justice and other virtues improves the soul (10, P) I think that soul is more important to the person than body (9, P) I think that body and soul (inner self) are distinct Here is where he lays out his vision of philosophy as improver of souls. This leaves open the possibility that he is corrupting the youth accidentally,īut his accusers do not want to reduce the charge to this less serious offense. He undermines the second charge-that he is a corrupter of youth-by proving that he is deliberately engaged in improving people (at least as he understands improving). (8, FC) The charge of atheism is groundless. (7, A) Anyone who tries to discover the will of the gods and live in (6, IC) I have tried to discover the will of the gods and live in accordance

(4, P) I understood that they wanted me to get people to examine Reputedly wise persons who are not wise). To discover this, and the gods wished me to expose sham wisdom (3, P) When I found nobody wiser than me, I realized the oracle wanted me (2, P) I tried to see whether its apparent meaning was true by questioning (1, P) I took seriously the unclear statement of the oracle at Several premises are buried in the facts about how he got involved in philosophy and how that, in his view, reflects the will of the gods. Thus, the logic of his refutation of the first charge is roughly thus:

= 'therefore' or 'so' (used to indicate a conclusion)ġ) he is impious, which is treated as meaning that he is an atheist (sometimes intermediate conclusions are left unstated expressing them explicitly will clarify the reasoning) Of Manuel Velasquez, Philosophy, 8th edition. Jan Garrett Last revised date: September 15, 2004Ī sketch of the logic of Socrates' Defense Speech as reproduced in chapter 1 Argument Analysis of Socrates' Apology Argument Analysis for Socrates' Defense Speech Contact: Dr.

Plato's apology of socrates