Apology İNG.
“Apology” is an interesting text. In Apology Sokrates never uses “ornamated words and phrases”(19). He mentions that he speaks as his daily life (19). He doesn’t need ornamated words because Socratic method is enough for his reply. The dialog between Socrates and Meletus is full of Socratic Methods. In this dialog Socrates replies this accuse: “That Socrates is a doer of evil, and corruptor of the youth, and he does not believe in the gods of the state, and has other divinities of his own.” (25).
Socrates’ reply can be divided into two parts: corrupting the youth and being an atheist. Socrates uses one method after another or he uses a few methods together in his dialog with Meletus. He uses conversational and dialogal methods especially in this dialog. He starts replying first accuse by using conceptual method. He claims that if there is someone who corrupts the youth so there must be someone who improves the youth(25). This is a logical truth, everyone accepts this and Socrates makes this truth a base to the following part of this dialog. Then he uses conversational method. Socrates asks who youth’s improver was. Also in the following page repeats this question and forces Meletus to answer him(26). I think Meletus answer is unlogical, because he claims that everyone on earth except Socrates improves the youth(26). At this point Socrates starts to use empirical method and mentions that one or only a few trainer can train a horse well(26). Training horses is a specific example. Then gives a more general example; training other animals. Then he uses deductive method, comes from animals to improving man, which is a kind of classification from general to specific(26) There are several examples like these in text. Socrates uses dialogal method so much as conversational method. His dialogal method is so similiar to conversational method. In both he asks questions but in dialogal method the responses are selected by Socrates. For example he asks that “Do not the good do neighbours good, and the bad do them evil?”(26). Meletus has no chance except answering this question by “Certainly” (26), as he does. By the help of dialogue, he makes Meletus accept that noone corrupts someone if he doesn’t want to be harmed(27). Then he uses conceptual method again. He makes this statement a base of his reply and claims that he does not corrupt anyone intentionally, if his speaking is called corruption (27). His following claim is that “But either I do not corrupt them, or I corrupt them unintentionally, so that on either view of the case you lie. If my offence is unintentional, the law has no cognizance of unintentional offences: you ought to have taken me privately and warned and admonished me; for if I had been better advised, I should have left off doing what I only did unintentionally – no doubt I should; whereas you hated to converse with me or teach me, but you indicted me in this court, which is a place not of instruction, but of punishment.”(27). I think this is a wrong statement, because according to this, nobody corrupts nobody intentionally.
Secondly, Socrates replies the indict:“…he does not believe in the gods of the state, and has other divinities of his own.”(19). Here, he uses skeptual method, he ignores that he beleives gods,and asks Meletus if Socrates is a simple atheist or if he is a teacher of atheism (27). Meletus says that Socrates is a complete atheist (27). At this point Meletus contradicts with his previous ideas and Socrates shows this contradiction by using emprical and deductive methods. First of all, he uses a few simple example such that “ Did any man believe in horseship, and not in horses?or in flute playing but not in flute-players?” (28). Therefore if somebody believes a part of something, then this person also belives that thing(28). As I mentioned before, explaining from specific to general is emprical method. Then he uses this general truth for explaining his specific situation - deductive method-. He shows people that if he has some divinities it means he believes in gods (29).
“Apology” is an interesting text. In Apology Sokrates never uses “ornamated words and phrases”(19). He mentions that he speaks as his daily life (19). He doesn’t need ornamated words because Socratic method is enough for his reply. The dialog between Socrates and Meletus is full of Socratic Methods. In this dialog Socrates replies this accuse: “That Socrates is a doer of evil, and corruptor of the youth, and he does not believe in the gods of the state, and has other divinities of his own.” (25).
Socrates’ reply can be divided into two parts: corrupting the youth and being an atheist. Socrates uses one method after another or he uses a few methods together in his dialog with Meletus. He uses conversational and dialogal methods especially in this dialog. He starts replying first accuse by using conceptual method. He claims that if there is someone who corrupts the youth so there must be someone who improves the youth(25). This is a logical truth, everyone accepts this and Socrates makes this truth a base to the following part of this dialog. Then he uses conversational method. Socrates asks who youth’s improver was. Also in the following page repeats this question and forces Meletus to answer him(26). I think Meletus answer is unlogical, because he claims that everyone on earth except Socrates improves the youth(26). At this point Socrates starts to use empirical method and mentions that one or only a few trainer can train a horse well(26). Training horses is a specific example. Then gives a more general example; training other animals. Then he uses deductive method, comes from animals to improving man, which is a kind of classification from general to specific(26) There are several examples like these in text. Socrates uses dialogal method so much as conversational method. His dialogal method is so similiar to conversational method. In both he asks questions but in dialogal method the responses are selected by Socrates. For example he asks that “Do not the good do neighbours good, and the bad do them evil?”(26). Meletus has no chance except answering this question by “Certainly” (26), as he does. By the help of dialogue, he makes Meletus accept that noone corrupts someone if he doesn’t want to be harmed(27). Then he uses conceptual method again. He makes this statement a base of his reply and claims that he does not corrupt anyone intentionally, if his speaking is called corruption (27). His following claim is that “But either I do not corrupt them, or I corrupt them unintentionally, so that on either view of the case you lie. If my offence is unintentional, the law has no cognizance of unintentional offences: you ought to have taken me privately and warned and admonished me; for if I had been better advised, I should have left off doing what I only did unintentionally – no doubt I should; whereas you hated to converse with me or teach me, but you indicted me in this court, which is a place not of instruction, but of punishment.”(27). I think this is a wrong statement, because according to this, nobody corrupts nobody intentionally.
Secondly, Socrates replies the indict:“…he does not believe in the gods of the state, and has other divinities of his own.”(19). Here, he uses skeptual method, he ignores that he beleives gods,and asks Meletus if Socrates is a simple atheist or if he is a teacher of atheism (27). Meletus says that Socrates is a complete atheist (27). At this point Meletus contradicts with his previous ideas and Socrates shows this contradiction by using emprical and deductive methods. First of all, he uses a few simple example such that “ Did any man believe in horseship, and not in horses?or in flute playing but not in flute-players?” (28). Therefore if somebody believes a part of something, then this person also belives that thing(28). As I mentioned before, explaining from specific to general is emprical method. Then he uses this general truth for explaining his specific situation - deductive method-. He shows people that if he has some divinities it means he believes in gods (29).
