Socrates' Trial

Socrates is EXTREMELY obnoxious. Socrates is quite conceited in the fact that he really and truly just does not seem to shut up. What are supposedly conversations seem to me to be more like monologues of Socrates’ ranting. He asks questions, and answers his own questions, and continues on to have a conversation with himself. The end result of these 'conversations' that he has, usually ends with him somehow or another proving to the person that they themselves, are idiots. Now Socrates never did use the word 'idiot', but I'm sure you can imagine that this is the way you would feel after talking to him would you not agree? His opinionated ways and non stop talking irritate me immensely, as I'm sure it did Meletus. He was also irritating to have around, and I believe Meletus did not like the fact that Socrates made him feel belittled, and proved him to be 'unwise'. I believe he was guilty of being agitating, but not of what he was tried with. I realize that there is more than one reason for his trial being unjust, but I would like to focus on the one particular aspect that I find to be the most obvious; that the trial was unfair. Socrates was a smooth talker and easily proved that Meletus had contradicted himself when he accused Socrates of not believing in the Gods. Socrates gets Meletus to agree that he believes in divine, which must mean that he believes in spirits or demigods. Socrates says, "But do we not believe that divinities are either gods themselves or the children of the gods? Do you admit that?" Meletus Response was, “I do". Socrates then continues on, "Then you admit that I believe in divinities. Now, if these divinities are gods, then, as I say, you are joking and asking a riddle, and asserting that I do not believe in the gods and at the same time that I do, since I believe in divinities". (Apology Pg.35 Section XV) Demigods are either Gods or sons of Gods, and Meletus agreed that Socrates believes in this, yet one of the things he is being accused of is that he does not believe in God's. Meletus contradicts himself, is that not enough to prove that the charges right then and there are illegitimate? If I were to say that I hate chocolate, then confessed that I loved Brownies, would you still believe my original statement where I said that I hated chocolate? Brownies are clearly mostly compromised of chocolate. I most certainly would not believe the original statement if someone was proved to have contradicted oneself, as Meletus did. I had a situation when I was watching one of my five year old neighbours one day. It was lunch time and it was one hell of a game trying to figure out what I was going to be able to get into her mouth. Do you like Cheese? No. Do you like Tomatoes? No. Do you like Yogurt? Peanut butter? Fruit? No, no oh and… No. I then finally got her to agree to let me make her a 'surprise' lunch. I decided to take the easy route, seeing as how I didn't even think she was going to finish it, and made her a classic macaroni from a box. I served it to her, and she finished it within 30 seconds. She looked up at me with a great big grin on her face and said, "YUMMY!" I chuckled to myself realizing that five minutes ago she had been putting up the act of being completely disgusted by cheese. She said one thing, and then a couple minutes later contradicted herself, which made the first statement of not liking cheese false. Meletus did the same, he claimed that Socrates did not believe in the God's, but then later on said that he did believe in the God's. That right there proves that the trial charges were illegitimate and Socrates had proven a flaw in Meletus' trial against him.