The influence of the philosopher Socrates, especially as depicted in Plato’s dialogues, is virtually impossible to overestimate in Western intellectual life. His thoughts were foundational for Western philosophy.

Yet, he was essentially the victim of judicial murder.

Socrates, after a lifetime of asking people what they knew, and frequently finding that they knew very little, was required to answer legal charges preferred by three enormously ambitious men. The charges were that he had corrupted the youth of Athens, that he disbelieved in the accepted Greek gods, and that he had introduced new gods to the city.

It has been argued that the charges were legal, and perhaps justified from some perspectives (e.g., Cartledge, 2009; Waterfield, 2009). Yet at his trial, Socrates provided a logical proof of his belief in the local gods (Plato, 1914 ed.); new gods were introduced all the time in Athens (Hughes, 2011); and all Socrates had really done to the local young men was to teach them to think and speak logically—perhaps an irritating thing for those whose incomes depended on other peoples’ gullibility, but hardly a capital crime.

So of what, exactly, was Socrates legitimately guilty?

Basically, he was irritating.

When the noble Meno was instructing Socrates on Virtue, Meno told him that Virtue involved grabbing gold and silver. Socrates corrected him, with logical precision. Meno, and his defender Anytus, were not happy.

When the great speaker Protagoras created ludicrous arguments that are still funny today, Socrates corrected him. Protagoras wasn’t trying to be funny. He wasn’t happy.

And on it went. Over and over, Socrates kept contradicting important and pompous people; and they weren’t happy.

So, he was charged; and the trial began.

Ancient Athenian trials were bloated and perhaps chaotic affairs. Although the Archon officials convened the courts, official........

© Psychology Today