In Plato’s Apology, Socrates must defend himself against many accusations, the primary ones being that he is an atheist and that he tries to corrupt the youth. Socrates employs his rhetoric in a political area and use Epideictic rhetoric strategies. Socrates’ overwhelming concern, in his defense speech, is that his accusers will be worse off if they kill him than if they allow him to live. Socrates is forced to have to defend himself to the court, and in doing so, Socrates employs a variety of rhetorical strategies. Since the arena is a political one, his rhetoric is based on political appeals, therefore, his defense is based on appealing to the definition of good and defining what is virtuous to his condemners. These appeals are political in nature, because Socrates claims that the government thinks that it is wise to get rid of him, like he is some sort of gadfly, when he is the one that keeps virtue at the forefront of every discussion.
Socrates states that the unexamined life is not worth living, which means that, for Socrates, he cannot live an unvirtuous life. Virtue, for Socrates, is found in discussing virtue. If this is what corrupts the youth, then he cannot assure the court that he would ever refrain from talking about virtue. Socrates uses political rhetoric to define what is good, and then to implore his audience to compare two good things, and see which is less. Certainly, it is less for the city of Athens to kill Socrates, for he points out that there will not be another like him. Therefore, Socrates switches his defense speech form supposedly protecting himself, to protecting his accusers. This rhetoric defense switch places the impetus of blame upon those who are doing the accusing rather than on the one who is defending himself.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Plato’s Apology: Socrates’ Rhetorical Defense".
According to Aristotle’s rhetoric strategies, Socrates is an Epideictic speaker, because he is defining virtue and vice, defending one and not the other. He applauds virtue, and he condemns vice. He amplifies his subjects through the extension. Socrates’ is genius part of his defense is claiming not to be defending himself, but to be defending his accusers. This strategy is an Epideictic amplified enthymeme of an argument, according to Aristotle’s classifications of rhetorical strategies. An Epideictic defense appeals to the common good that all men [should] recognize. Socrates’ defense fails because his accusers are not virtuous, and they are not perturbed by Socrates’ appeal to virtue. Socrates is correct when he states that if he had said the demeaning things they wanted him to say, and if he had accepted shame, then his accusers might have let him go. But this was not a defense strategy that Socrates could have lived with afterward.
After the court votes to condemn Socrates to death, he defends his defense strategy, stating that he did not bend to the vice of their will, and he did not plead with them in any undignified manner. Instead, he held firm to his virtue, and he presented his defense argument in a way that he could live or die with; whereas, if he had lowered himself to grovel, then he would have lost his virtue, and he would not have preferred to live. Aristotle describes virtue as being a social good, preserving good things, and being a benefit on all occasions; and this is certainly the technique that Socrates uses in his defense. Socrates’ appeal to virtue, in the political arena, is a mismatch rhetorical device as far as convincing his accusers to not vote to kill him; however, Socrates Epideictic defense was a perfect match for the virtue of Socrates.
