The State (aka the Thirty Tyrants) vs Socrates Sophroniscus 399BC
Presiding Officer: King Archon
Charges:
- Asebeia (impiety) against the Pantheon of Athens
- Corruption of the youth of the city-state of Athens
Penalty demanded: Death Penalty.
Main witness for the Prosecution: Meletus
– The accused failed on numerous occasions to acknowledge the gods acknowledged by the State of Athens and through his actions corrupted the youth through his learnings. (Own summary of three hours evidence)
Socrates in Defense: Charge 1 is ambiguous in that it does not state that I believe in no gods, but that I believe other Gods exist.
On charge 2: if my teachings about the virtue corrupts the youth, I am indeed a mischievous person. I believe that I am actually a hero for sharing my thoughts with the youth.
“Men of Athens, I honor you and love you, but I shall obey God rather than you and while I have life and strength I shall never cease from the practice and teaching of philosophy and I would rather be put to death than to give up philosophy”
Jury of 500 citizens (after deliberation): 280 jurors: Guilty on both charges; 220: Not guilty.
Judge: What sentence does the State propose?
State: the only appropriate sentence is the death penalty, your Honour.
Judge: Does the accused wish to add anything on a suitable sentence?
Socrates: Members of the Jury, I am a family man, I propose that I am rewarded with free meals in the Prytaneum and live in Athens for the remainder of my days. In the alternative, I propose that I be fined the amount of 100 drachmae, constituting one fifth of my current wealth.
Enter Plato, Crito, Critobolous and Apollodorus (Socrates friends and scholars) – If it pleases the Court, we agree and guarantee payment of a fine of 3 000 drachmae.
Jury: 360 jurors in favour of the death penalty; 140 for payment of the fine as suggested by the accused.
Judge: Confirms the death penalty by hemlock.
And so the curtain falls on the court case of one a famous philosopher.
Why did I put you through the ordeal of reading this reconstructed trial?
To make your own call – do you wish to impact society through your learnings, that were so influential that, although you never wrote a single book or article, inspired generations of scholars and formed modern opinions centuries later, still attempting to educate, lecture and provoke your jurors, being a good person rather than an obedient citizen or
would you abide by popular views and support the (often) amoral popular public opinion….
In essence Socrates made the Athenians choose between their love for freedom and their love of community.
Your choice.
How to be a truth-seeker in a world that wants to be right
In a world where being right often takes precedence over seeking the truth, being a truth-seeker requires a commitment to curiosity, humility, and critical thinking. The trial of Socrates reminds us that questioning widely accepted beliefs and assumptions can be uncomfortable and even dangerous, as society often resists change and challenges to its norms.
However, the pursuit of truth demands intellectual honesty, the willingness to admit when you’re wrong, and the cou-rage to ask difficult questions, even when the answers may unsettle others or yourself.
To be a truth-seeker, one must prioritise learning over winning arguments. This means listening to diverse perspectives, testing ideas through open dialogue, and being willing to revise beliefs when new evidence arises. Truth-seekers must also resist the pull of echo chambers and groupthink, embracing the idea that growth often comes through uncomfortable or challenging conversations.
In a world that values being right, the truth-seeker’s task is to prioritise understanding over ego, recognising that truth is often complex and evolving. Like Socrates, one must be willing to face resistance and remain steadfast in the search for deeper knowledge, knowing that this journey is as much about personal integrity as it is about finding answers.
