a)Based on Plato’s “Apology,” it is difficult to determine whether Socrates corrupted the youth of Athens or not. Some might argue that Socrates was corrupting the youth by teaching them to question traditional beliefs and values, while others might argue that Socrates was actually helping the youth by encouraging them to think critically and independently. In my opinion, he did corrupt the primarily spread beliefs at the time, which was religion and gods, but he was trying to spread a new logical way of thinking about the world for the better. What do you guys think?
b)In his defense, Socrates argued that he did not corrupt the youth intentionally by asking Melatus using his method of asking a series of questions to get the truth out and trying to make people realize the truth and their ignorance. He insisted that he was just a teacher of a different belief system just like what they originally believed in. Even with less favor on his side, he kept his belief and argued that he did nothing wrong and that he will continue to follow his belief regard of the court’s decision.
Socrates’ defense can be seen as convincing because of his arguments about the importance of truth-seeking and his belief that the pursuit of truth is beneficial for society as a whole. However in my opinion it could be convincing to me because there are lot more knowledge and information out there for me to learn and compare in the 21st century, but at the time the majority of people had religious beliefs. A good example to compare Socrates vs the court would be Plato’s Allegory of The Cave. What do you guys think? -Min