Politics and what is Right It is impossible to discuss a platonic statement without first examining its context. Each word is carefully placed and should therefore be taken as a whole group rather than as individual parts. Accordingly, in order to analyze Plato’s declaration in Apology 32a, we must also look at Apology as a whole as a reference to this sample. Several significant dialogue advancements evolve Socrates’ reasoning towards this statement, each pertaining to his own life. Personal experience, therefore, is the driving force behind, if not the solitary reason for, his assertion. The first two experiences that lead to this revelation are contained in his first and second rebuttals. When the first group accuses him of “[being] a criminal . . . prying into things under the earth and up in the heavens, and making the weaker argument the stronger, and teaching these same things to others,” he responds by explaining the negative opinions towards him - which led to these accusations – by narrating his divine enlightenment. (Apology, 19b) The oracle at Delphi had prophesized that he was the wisest of men. Socrates, therefore, concluded that his wisdom must stem from the fact that he understands that he knows nothing and considered this to be a calling to expose the “false wisdom” of others. As is customary with self-concept, these men blamed Socrates for their uncovered shortcomings and responded by “repeat[ing] the stock charges against philosophers, ‘underground lore and up-in-the-air lore, atheists, making the weaker argument the stronger,’” thus validating the aggravating nature of the Socratic Method. (Apology, 23d) As for his second accusers, their contestation is that “Socrates is a criminal who corrupts the young and does not believe in gods whom the state believes in, but other new spiritual things instead.” (Apology, 24b) In response, Socrates cross-examines Meletus, as he is accustomed to doing in private circles. He is marginally more focused on embarrassment than arriving at the truth here but this dialogue still further illustrates the legitimacy behind his claims that his method upsets those who encounter its revealing nature. His defense is succeeded by the regression and the third occurrence that brings about his revelation. Here, Socrates affirms his willingness to defy authority of any form. He disregards the jurors’ power by minimalizing their greatest penalty, death, by not only showing fearlessness regarding it but also saying that “to fear death …is only to think that you are wise when you are not,” thereby calling them fools for thinking that this was a power at all. (Apology, 29a) He goes on to say that if they release him on the condition that he cannot practice philosophy he would rather die than conform to it, both showing his absolute commitment to the his cause and confirming that he would not respect any determination that would force him to cease the behavior that his accusers claim is unlawful. This shows that he has an irrational non-fear of the government as an entity that has power over him. These three developments contain the relevant details that Apology gives its readers that can be used in order to formulate a reasonable understanding of the roots of Apology 32a, in which he argues: “It is necessary that one who really and truly fights for the right, if he is to survive even for a short time, shall act as a private man, not as a public man.” (Apology, 32a)
This statement comes in a few parts and is derived from Socrates’ personal experience. First is “the man who really and truly fights.” Socrates’ unwillingness to forgo his disputed actions, despite any consequence or penalty, communicates that he relentlessly or “really and truly” fights. Furthermore, his complete dedication to his cause, his belief that it was divinely inspired, and his assertions that his actions are a gift to the state imply that he believes himself to fight “for the right.” Lastly, it