Socrates Pleadings 1-13

[Interpretation • He Yongqi]

Today I will begin to share a summary of Socrates' "Apology". At the same time, I also hope that readers, through the interpretation and reading of these two articles, can have a clear understanding of the philosophical master "Socrates"!

The main reason for reading Socrates' "Apology" is to understand his thinking and linguistic skills!

Socrates did not publish any books, and his sayings were collected by his follower (student), Plato, and the most important passages are just a few.

The Pleadings record Socrates' defense in court, which is Socrates' own defense.

Through the reading of the "Apology", we can clearly understand Socrates' mode of thinking and the deeds related to him. For example, what did he do? How did he get into a lawsuit? And what happened to Socrates in the end?

Readers need to be patient, though!

Plato's Pedo records the last conversation Socrates had with his friends in prison during his imprisonment. The author of the Pedo is Plato, who was not present at the final execution of Socrates.

After Socrates' death, Plato interviewed those who had visited Socrates in prison, as recorded in the Pedo.

The answer is that Socrates' defense in court was finally compiled by his student Plato, and the content of the record is Socrates' oral defense, so the article belongs to Socrates. Plato just took the place of the teacher and recorded his words. This does not belong to Plato's thought, so the signature of the work is Socrates' reply.

(Trial Opening)

From the above statement, it can be seen that Socrates is wise, first of all, he focuses on the accusations against him. And then there's a feeling that says, "That's not me," and this "that's not me" is a thread, and it's going to go all the way through.

Socrates then defines the accusations against him as "slander" against him.

The audience at this time was the audience, and they were not obligated to help Socrates. The hearing bench is only to distinguish between the rights and wrongs of the plaintiff and the defendant's arguments, and who will say what is convincing?

The final verdict is made at the end of the argument, and the final court verdict is pronounced on the basis of the final vote. The one with the most votes wins.

This argument has little to do with the facts, and it mainly depends on which of the two sides is eloquent. Whoever is eloquent will win the support and votes of the courtroom audience, and more than two-thirds of the votes will be the winner.

Socrates' arguments and dialogues were all events that happened to him, but they had little to do with the trial. The plaintiff and the defendant, both sides are telling the facts, and the facts they say are all grounded. Since there is a basis, it depends on whose eloquence is good. Whoever has a good eloquence and can impress the judges and the audience at the hearing table will win the vote and support. If the trial is within the time limit, and the support rate exceeds two-thirds, it is considered a victory.

Note: On the surface, this is a trial of Socrates, or to be precise, it is a contest of wisdom and linguistic skill.

The lawsuit was triggered by the accusations made by the plaintiff against Socrates, who, as the "defendant", appeared in court to defend himself. Remember, this is a contest of eloquence and language skills, and it is also the important value of the whole "Defense".

The defense shows Socrates' linguistic skills and the wisdom of the defense. From the dialogue and defense, you can see his thinking pattern, so the value of the defense is very valuable. Because it records the words and thoughts of Socrates.

If we compare it figuratively, it is equivalent to Lao Tzu's "Tao Te Ching", and the value of "Arguments" is very valuable! Because Socrates' "rational and logical thinking" influenced the entire Greek culture, and later the entire Western philosophy (Europe, America, including Eastern Europe).

Rational and logical thinking is just a thinking framework, which supports the "academic context and direction". The main heart remains unchanged, along the line of "rational and logical thinking", the knowledge is explored all the way up, and the endless upward is all the way.

Spiritually speaking, its academic pursuit is to explore all the way upward, and there is no apex.

Academic pursuits can blossom, but... The way of thinking is the root thread, otherwise you wouldn't even know how to explore. You can't fantasize??—— if you don't have "reason", then you can't realize your "dream" at all.

Rational and logical thinking is very important, it connects dreams, and dreams have a context and path, so that they can be realized.

Continue: Plaintiff and defendant, since both sides have a basis, it depends on who is more convincing. Whoever speaks well will win the support of the judge and the audience, and for that will win the case.

Socrates was defending himself at this point, winning the acquittal and being executed. Socrates' defeat meant death! Therefore, he had to defend himself as hard as he could. Winning the support of the judges and the audience, he could only win the trial if he had passed two-thirds of the votes. Otherwise, he will be found guilty.

He was a great philosopher and a prominent student, and the greatest asset of the Apology is Socrates' linguistic skills and way of thinking, including his grasp of the situation at trial.

In the defense article, there are many bright spots that are hidden. If you don't analyze the plot, you can't see where its highlights are.

What I saw was that Socrates' use of linguistic skills was superb. In this trial of Socrates, the situation is like the curve of an electrocardiogram. It goes up and down, sometimes the defendant takes the initiative, sometimes the plaintiff takes the initiative, and the situation is constantly changing.

The accusers were a group of accusers of Socrates, and their goal was to die.

The defendant was Socrates himself, and the situation he faced was complicated. If the trial is conducted fairly and justly, then it is fine! The key is whether the Athenians have hatred for him. If the angry Athenians themselves hated Socrates?—— then no matter how well he argued, it was equal to zero.

The judges and the hearing bench are Athenians, and Socrates is also Athenians, and if they don't vote for you, they will lose in the end. The key is to see what the Athenians' attitude towards Socrates was, and whether they hated Socrates?

Note that both the plaintiff and the defendant have a card, and that is "one mouth".

This card, it depends on how you play it through your mouth! The whole process of defense is a contest of language skills and wisdom!

Whoever makes a speech that touches the hearts of judges and audiences more, and thus wins the approval rating and votes. Both the plaintiff and the defendant can win the case if they win two-thirds of the support.

If this trial is a war, then the weapons on both sides are a battle of mouths.

Whether your eloquence can move the judge and the audience is the key to life and death. Of course, Socrates had only "one mouth", and he was dealing with "a group of mouths".

It doesn't matter, this is originally a contest of "eloquence and wisdom", but it is done through the "mouth".

That is: even if those people's accusations against Socrates are true, as long as Socrates "defends" well, then he can win. Socrates' task was to "refute the accusator's accusations against him" so that he would win.

However, it was also difficult for Socrates to win his case, and the content of the accusations against him by the plaintiff was also very sharp. It's not that easy to refute.

Again, the Athenians were too familiar with Socrates! This is even more demanding of Socrates' defense. If Socrates could not make a strong argument, it would be difficult for him to win the judge and the hearing seat to vote for him.

Socrates was clever enough to deny the accusations made against him by the accuser, saying, "That's not me."

Regardless of whether what the other party said was true or not, Socrates took a negative attitude all the way. And then turn around and blame those who accuse him, which was a tactic of Socrates' court defense.

Note: "That's not me" is the core and main axis of Socrates' arguments, and it is this main line that he guards.

The beginning is just a statement by Socrates! The plaintiff must have heard what he accused of Socrates. Socrates, very skillfully, gave the object of discernment to the hearing bench and the judge, so that they could judge whether the plaintiff's accusations were reasonable.

This trick is very ingenious, originally the audience and the judge, just from the arguments of both sides, who is reasonable, whose statement can stand. Thus the judge and the jury can exercise the right to support or disagree. Depending on the number of votes received, the final hearing bench and the judge will raise their watches and decide whether to convict or not. But what about Socrates? He first asked the people in the court to judge the content of the accusation to see if the accuser's accusation was convincing. If the accuser's accusations are untenable??—— then there is no need for this trial of Socrates.

Here, it is mainly up to the two sides of the complaint, and who can convince more listeners to support his point of view, which is the key to success or failure! Canvassing votes is very important.

However, this is in a trial, and it depends on your eloquence and speech ability to win votes for yourself, and the key is "eloquence".

First, Socrates and his opponents' oratorical skills are the key to victory or defeat? It is equivalent to saying that whoever is eloquent and can win the approval rating will be the winner.

But there is a bit of a complication here, for example: Did the Athenians hate Socrates? If the Athenians themselves hated Socrates, then he would be condemned even if he was eloquent.

A trial is not the same as a debate, in which the adjudicator scores both sides and then comments on the merits. The trial is based on the rate of support (here, only for the Socratic Plea).

In his statement, Socrates consistently defined the accusator's accusations against him as "that is not me", and then, in turn, Socrates blamed those who accused him. Finally, Socrates threw the right to the audience and the judges.

Socrates said to everyone: What do you think about the accusations against the accused, against me?

In fact, Socrates didn't expect them to answer, he just threw a question to the jury and the judge and asked them to comment!

On the one hand, this will win a certain amount of support, and on the other hand, it will also allow the judges and the hearing bench to form a new understanding of the plaintiffs! This is beneficial to Socrates. Su votes 54 vs. 46 votes, leading.

(Game 2)

As mentioned earlier, this trial is to see who is more eloquent. Whoever convinces the hearts of judges and listeners will win more support and votes. Eloquence determines success or failure (unless the Athenians hated Socrates).

Socrates was not only eloquent, but also very intelligent! He was good at thinking and seeking knowledge; the key is that he loved the truth and was constantly exploring the unknown.

For Socrates: seeking truth and knowledge is the highest pursuit of his thoughts, and he did the same throughout his life.

Throughout his life, Socrates pondered only a few questions, which were also related to theology. For example, where does a person come from??—— what is the meaning of life, where does he go after death??—— what is his soul??—— and his whole life is spent in this way, except for seeking semesters. Constant thinking, constant reflection, this condenses the knowledge of Socrates into a "point", that is, "wisdom".

Socrates' thirst for truth and knowledge was so persistent that ten oxen could not pull it back.

It can be said that thinking and reflection is the meaning of Socrates' life.

In the Pedo, Socrates discusses these questions: what is the meaning of life?—— where do people go after death??—— do people have souls??—— what is the soul?—— Socrates discussed these with his friends before he died.

Remember, the Psalm is a conversation Socrates had with his friends in custody before he was executed. This shows that Socrates was still thinking about these questions when he was dying.

He was a philosophical champion, and his ideas led the development of the entire Western society, and I have great respect for Socrates, who deserves to be a philosophical champion.

Followers (students) of Socrates, also very influential. Like Plato and Aristotle, these people are very prominent, and the influence of Socrates can also be seen indirectly from here.

If I have time, I hope to read "Imaginary Country" as well, but it depends on whether time allows.

Recently, I have been interpreting Guiguzi's "Chapter", and not many people have read it......

Socrates always defined the accusation of his opponent as a "lie", saying: I object to the accusation of the accuser against me, because, "that is not me."

Socrates then mentions the fact that the one that astonishes me the most of their lies is that "I mean they, tell you, to be careful, and not to be deceived by my rhetoric."

The above sentence actually does not reflect anything, Socrates took this sentence and accused his opponent of not doing it, in order to gain votes for himself.

This sentence also reflects some problems: the plaintiff really thinks that Socrates is very eloquent! So the plaintiff reminded the judge and the hearing bench to wake up.

What??—— don't be deceived by Socrates' language, he can say black into white, you have to listen carefully to his "reply".

This also shows that Socrates was already a "eloquent eloquent" in Athens at that time. We know he was a philosopher, but you don't know that he was very eloquent in Athens at that time!

Socrates rebuked those who accused him of shamelessness, saying, "Be careful of Socrates, he can make what is white and what is black," and we have to admit that Socrates did have the ability. Sue 56 vs. 44 votes

(Game 3)

Here, Socrates defines his eloquence as "that is my defect." His eloquence is already very high, but he says no, this is what makes me inferior.

Then he said: Whenever I open my mouth to reveal my "defects," the accusers must be aware of them.

If the judge and the hearing bench were keeping a close eye on his arguments, he would not be very sure of winning, so Socrates softened at this point.

How to soften the ??—— judge and the hearing bench already know that he is very eloquent! Therefore, I must listen carefully to his reply. This was done in order to grasp Socrates' handle. It is equivalent to saying that the judge heeded the plaintiff's reminder, and they began to listen carefully to Socrates' reply. From the jury, to the judge, to the audience, to the accusers, they are all carefully grasping for Socrates' handle.

If such a trial had been carried out all the way, it would have been obvious that the situation would be very unfavorable to Socrates. If he can't convince the judge and the hearing bench, he will surely be convicted. The result: Socrates was convicted. Socrates "losing" meant death, he could not lose, so he began to "soften".

I'll try to answer and see how it goes:

Socrates said, "The plaintiff said I was eloquent?" Actually, that was my flaw. That is, I am not as good as people.

The plaintiffs said that I was very eloquent, that I could not strike iron, that they said that I was very good, that I could not weave, that they said that I was very eloquent?—— and that I could not answer the questions of the Athenian children. Socrates said, "Well, that's my flaw, but what makes me inferior."

Note: Socrates, who defined his eloquence as "that is my flaw", is where I am inferior to others. This is a tactic used in court arguments to paralyze the judge and the hearing bench, as well as the jury, so that they do not focus on his "arguments."

See, this is the only way to dispel the vigilance of the entire court against Socrates.

The plaintiff said, "Socrates is very eloquent!" and this reminded the judge and the audience. They began to listen attentively, and if they were not careful, they would be led away by Socrates.

The judge and the jury, after hearing Socrates' reply, felt that it was nothing, that it was not as powerful as the plaintiff said??—— so in the following arguments, Socrates was lenient! No one was glued to his handle.

Judging from the situation of the trial, Socrates was relatively lenient at this time, which was very beneficial to his defense. Through the softening of the front, he also won the right to speak. Originally, the whole court despised his reply, that is, ignored it, because Socrates always "did not talk about the present, but answered the past." ”

In this debate, there is a main axis, Socrates grasps on, "That's not me" as the core, and then he blames the accuser for not being the case.

Doing so would reduce the court's confidence in the plaintiff's accusations! If Socrates did not do so, he would have lost immediately. As a result, Socrates was convicted.

Why does the plaintiff keep staring at Socrates' "now"?

Attention! Because talking about "now" is enough to defeat Socrates. When we talk about the results of the previous ??—— Socrates, it will be: if you have committed a crime, you will not be convicted, and at most the court will give him a warning, and the matter will be over.

Therefore, the core of the plaintiff's accusation refers to Socrates' "now".

Socrates knew that if he spoke of "now" he would die, and that he would not talk about the present, and that he would answer "before".

Plaintiff: Referring directly to Socrates' "now", Socrates: Don't talk about "now";

Focus: The accuser directs the accusation at Socrates' "now." Socrates' duty was to pull the goal "before".

The strategy is to "downplay" the biggest threat at present and "exaggerate" the smallest damage in the past. This is Socrates' strategy of court defense.

Before?—— did little harm to Socrates, but now it was his greatest threat.

For example, the plaintiff said, "Socrates, you went to the mall yesterday and bought a book!" Socrates said, "That's not me, I'm here to buy soy sauce."

Socrates' strategy was to deny all the accusations made against him by the accuser, whether they were true or false, whether they were justified or not. And then in turn, blame the sarcasm, those who accuse him. In this way, Socrates slowly won the initiative and support in the court. This is inseparable from his defense strategy and language skills, so that Socrates always has the initiative in the court.

The point is: first deny the opponent's accusations, and then blame and ridicule the opponent in turn.

In doing so, it creates a psychological burden on the opponent. Judges and juries will also change their minds on the plaintiff's charges (or at least less firmly).

In the end, there will be an outcome, and only if the Athenians do not hate Socrates: Socrates, win!

If the Athenians hated Socrates??—— he would have been condemned for his eloquence, exile or death. Socrates, anyway, could not stay in Athens any longer.

In fact, Socrates lied, but the judge and the hearing bench did not notice it. His court defense is to win the support rate, as long as the support rate is more than two-thirds, he will win the case, which is a contest of "eloquence and wisdom". Votes Su 57 vs 43 votes

(Game 4)

As mentioned earlier, this is a courtroom debate, and not necessarily everything that is said is true. It doesn't matter if the content is true or not. The key is to see who can win the support of the hearing bench and the judge, and the support rate and votes determine the final outcome.

Socrates said: I am not like them, every word has been carefully arranged, and I am by no means like them. My words and arguments speak wherever I think of them, because I am sure they are true.

Socrates had a slight lead with 58 vs. 42 votes.

(Game 5)

The above paragraph is basically true, and the plaintiff wants to convict him wholeheartedly, which is true. As for the plaintiff's defense, was it carefully arranged? There are two points of view: First, Socrates is really difficult to deal with, and he is too eloquent! The plaintiff cannot refute it in any way. This allowed Socrates to win the initiative in the court, and the plaintiff really had to be careful, otherwise the plaintiff would fail.

The accusers of Socrates were not three or five people, but a group of people. They all wanted Socrates to die.

Second, whether the plaintiff's argument was carefully arranged or not did not matter to Socrates. The important thing is to increase the recognition of his words, that is, to make everyone in the trial think that what he said is right. In this way, Socrates was able to win the favor and thus win the case.

The key is to look at your eloquence and speech skills! Can your eloquence impress the judge and the audience? This is the key to victory or defeat.

Don't think that if Socrates is eloquent, he will win! Not necessarily, the point is that the accusations against him by the plaintiff are also fatal.

Relatively speaking, as long as Socrates argues well, he can win in terms of support.

You look at the score I scored, this score is not random. The score is based on Socrates' arguments, as well as the motivation and recognition of the court participants. The change in the score indicates a change in the situation at trial, and it indicates the strong relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant.

Obviously, in the beginning, Socrates' votes grew slowly. This shows that the judge, the jury, the audience, these people leaned towards Socrates. This is closely related to his defense and oratorical skills. "Speaking" and "listening" are two different concepts, and the feelings will be different depending on the location.

There are two main points in the presentation: first, consider the feelings of the "listener". The audience is the target group of your "talk", and if the audience does not want to listen, you can only speak to yourself to "listen".

The second important point is to speak, and the content and information you talk about are very important. What do listeners get from the message you "speak"? That's crucial. Why people should listen to you??—— the content of the message is important, and it welcomes the feelings of the listeners!

So the two concepts of "speaking" and "listening" are very important in the speech, and it is related to the results.

Socrates led with 59 votes vs. 41 votes.

(Game 6)

In one of the games, several messages were hinted upon: it seems that the Athenians hated Socrates. Why do you hate him??—— it has to do with the way Socrates did his learning.

Socrates loved the truth (philosophy-Sophia, that is, he loved the truth), Socrates loved the truth, he loved to explore the unknown! So, when he had nothing to do, he went to the gates of the city, in the bazaars, in crowded places, and debated with those who thought he was wise.

?——Socrates found that those men were not wiser than he was.

In this way, he offended many Athenians. You see, these accusers of Socrates are those who "think they are wise."

These are all people who have been "consulted" by Socrates, and they have a bit of face in Athens, but after being refuted by Socrates, they have no face. That's why they accused Socrates.

Note that the content of their accusations is not that "Socrates" has refuted them, but that they have no face to say that they have to speak with facts;

Socrates' method of asking for advice angered those who had high prestige and status in Athens, and after this group of people was refuted by Socrates, their reputation and status were lost, and the family face could not be passed. They began to frame Socrates. How to frame it??—— grab Socrates' handle, and then go to court to accuse him. This accusation is to say: Socrates, who taught the young people of Athens badly.

They began to retaliate for the revival of Gracrates with accusations, and it can be said that this group of people hated Socrates to the core, and they thought that "Socrates is the bane of Athens." ”

Obviously, in Athens, there was a part of the people who hated Socrates, and in this way, Socrates slowly became well-known in Athens. And what about the people he refuted? They were angry, they were jealous, and that's why Socrates got into a lawsuit.

In this way, Socrates was the most scolded among the upper class of Athens. Ordinary people still respect him! I just think he is very strange and always feel unpredictable.

In this statement, Socrates is tepid, reminding everyone in the courtroom that the strategy of the argument is tepid and to the point. This is playing the emotional card, and it is better to let everyone in the court understand him.

Note: This is also a technique in the speech of the court argument, and the purpose is to win the approval rate.

Su votes 60 vs. 40 votes, leading.

At this point, the participants in the court, a little impatient with Socrates' defense. Because Socrates always "avoided the present and answered the past", which made it difficult for the trial to progress. The court could not deprive him of the right to appeal for himself, whether he was in Socrates or not, whether he was heard or not in the judge and the hearing seat.

(Game 7)

From the above statement of Socrates, it can be seen that there were obviously many people who scolded him! And these people who scolded him were all well-known people in Athens at that time.

Here Socrates is clever and he mentions "Anitos", the one who accuses him.

There is also a strategy for the trial, and although Socrates says that "Anitus" has framed him the most, it is far less than the one who preceded him to slander him.

Here, Socrates belittles the object of the greatest threat to him. He took the previous person and carried out the main targeting. Actually, it's a pretense.

That is to say: Socrates, wanting to downplay the importance of his accusations in court. He knew that he would be condemned if he spoke "now", so he pulled the focus "to the past." ”

Remember, the plaintiff is referring to Socrates' "now," and that's the point! Socrates' strategy is to avoid "now" and answer "before."

It is equivalent to saying: Socrates, bypass the deadliest accusations first, and then exalt the most powerless injuries in the past, so as to reduce the level of the threat "now".

If 100% damage hits, I'll go for 10% first, turn 100% and reduce it by at least 7%, and then I'll find a way to fight back.

Don't you see the problem??—— this is a trial, and the person who slandered Socrates in the early days is probably no longer there. In fact, "Anitus" is the biggest threat to Socrates at the moment.

It's just that Socrates must say that this threat is nothing.

For example: someone who hated you a few years ago pricked you with a needle. Now, there is a person who hates you, and he has a knife, and from the point of view of the debate, you will definitely say: this knife is nothing, then who stabbed me with a needle and almost killed me.

Actually, it's the knife that kills, but the knife hasn't been pierced yet. When the man with the knife listens to you, he thinks: Well, this knife can't kill him, and it's not too late for me to bring a needle next time I kill him.

In fact, the person who pricked the needle has already passed, it is in the previous tense, and there is no harm.

And what about the person with the knife? It's in the present tense, and the damage is right around the corner.

This was also a strategy of the debate, at which point Socrates significantly outnumbered the plaintiffs, with Socrates holding a decisive advantage of 62 vs. 38.

This means that the judge and the jury have set their sights on the past of Socrates. This also shows that Socrates was successful in "avoiding the present and talking about the past".

Sue 62 vs. 38 votes, leading.

(Game 8)

In this round, several questions were prompted;

First, there has always been a discussion of Socrates;

That is to say: the grandparents discussed Socrates, and the sons, grandchildren, and generations are still discussing him.

It is equivalent to: those who spoke ill of Socrates, when did they say it? Now there is just that saying, which is still in the memory of some people. There is a claim, but there is no evidence, and it is Socrates himself who has the most right to speak.

This is also Socrates' debating strategy: to first blur the courtier's vision and make them not focus on their "present". Only in this way can we blur the audience's vision and draw their eyes to the slander against him in the early days. This will create a contrast: compare the earlier slander with the current "slander". This makes the jury consider and say: Is there any need to proceed with the current accusation?

It's a before and after; You dropped a watermelon before, and now you drop a sesame seed, which is important? Socrates' defense strategy, that's pretty much what it means.

Focus: Exaggerate the smallest "slander" in the past, the bigger the better. The current accusations should be "downplayed," so that the people at the trial scene can be given a comparative mentality, comparing the past with the present.

Socrates' task is only to exaggerate the previous slander, and the bigger the better!

This trick of his is very powerful! The jury and the judge will ask themselves, saying: Is there any need to proceed with this case?

Seeing ?—— Socrates not only impressed the jury with his linguistic skills, but also focused on "the transformation of his linguistic skills." In doing so, the situation of the trial was held in the hands of Socrates.

This is like playing chess, Socrates can see the "potential", and can also control the potential, so he can complete it with "one mouth". So "eloquence" is important!

As mentioned earlier, both the plaintiff and the defendant have a weapon, and that is "a mouth". The cards in your hand, see how you play them through your mouth!

As long as you have wisdom, you can win a bad deck, and the key point is "wisdom".

Don't look at this trial, it was done with the mouth, what is hidden behind it is the wisdom of Socrates. Socrates is not only highly intelligent, but also extremely gifted in language! 64 vs. 36 votes, Socrates leads.

(9th Bedroom)

Socrates' statement in this game is solemn and states: My formal plea will be made below. The content of Socrates' statement does not matter whether it is true or false, but the point is to see how he grasps the current accusations.

After all, the current accusations are his threat, and the previous slander has passed, and it has nothing to do with the current Socrates.

Socrates' proposal is reasonable, and talks about why someone is accusing him now, but it's also a strategy. It doesn't matter who said the slander in the past, what matters is that the focus of the present is put on the past. This was beneficial to Socrates.

That is to say, we should insist on "that's not me" in the face of current accusations, and transfer the current threats to the past.

Strategically, it is still to downplay the threat of the "present" and exaggerate the damage of the "before". Downplaying the present and exaggerating the former is Socrates' strategy of court argumentation.

He has always done this before, for example, avoiding the present and answering the past, so that the focus of the present is drawn to the past. In this way, we can draw attention to the previous "thing".

By drawing the focus of the present to the past, the jury's eyes will not be on Socrates, but on the past.

In short, I will still make comparisons in my heart, and take the present and compare it with the past. In the past, I only heard about it, but it was Socrates himself who had the most right to speak.

The success of Socrates' strategy in this game increased his support rating, leading with 66 vs. 34 votes.

(Game 10)

Similar to the previous inference, some of what Socrates said in the previous paragraph is true, and some... It's about turning a corner. Socrates often threw questions to the judge and the hearing bench, asked them to answer, and then they argued, and Socrates became a spectator.

In doing so, on the one hand, he can clarify what he said, and on the other hand, he can shift the focus from his "words".

Suppose someone in the audience asks: Socrates said something, and he speaks it. Socrates had two strategies: first, discuss it and see if it was right? Second, I didn't say it.

The main axis of Socrates' argument is still the same line, which has not changed!

He then rebukes the person who said it, and the accused person will be dishonest if he does not have a good reason to answer. If you are a dishonest person, it will be discussed, right or wrong?

In this way, the credibility of the person will be reduced in the next question and statement, and the person will be careful in replying.

If the plaintiff does not think carefully, come up with a strong accusation. The court is likely to drop the charges against Socrates on the spot, thus acquitting him.

The number of votes Sue 67 vs 33 votes, leading.

(Game 11)

Earlier, Socrates talked about his "salary", which is a foreshadowing. It's like telling the court a story about him getting paid, and it's more like telling you about him.

Of course, this did happen to Socrates, yes, but at this time, Socrates was delaying time. Second, his purpose was to use words to impress the jury and the judge so that they would listen attentively to him. This is crucial to what will happen next! For example, Socrates could use the present as an opening statement. But that would have made him face the current charges and would have been convicted.

If Socrates had chosen to use the previous slander as his opening statement, then he would have avoided the immediate threat of the current accusation.

Socrates still focuses on the past, and uses this topic as the beginning of the next step.

This does no direct harm to Socrates, the damage comes from now. The increase of that 1 vote shows that the court participants are interested in his "salary".

Vote Su 68v32 votes, leading.

(Game 12)

In this game, Socrates has a prominent point: he wants to use the "Kerryphon" incident to increase the recognition of his words. Obviously, at this time, Socrates' appeal was not accepted.

The judge and the jury found Socrates a little annoying! He was so verbose that he always talked about the past. The court has lost interest in his "words".

The jury's sentiment was very bad for Socrates! If the court did not want to hear his case, then he had failed.

The whole court, except for the plaintiff who does not want to hear his reply, then who supports him? Who votes for him?—— judge and the audience have to vote for both sides, don't forget! A two-thirds support rate is considered a victory. Socrates could not afford to lose, and to lose meant to die.

Therefore, he used the matter of "Kai Ruifeng" to improve the recognition of his words and prove that it is true. There is also someone who can corroborate that Kai Ruifeng's younger brother was at the scene of the court.

Note: If the younger brother of "Kerifon" could testify about this at this time, then Socrates would have made a big profit! In the following trial, he would have been able to take the initiative in the situation. Now he is passive, the court is impatient with him, he is passive!

Here is also a problem: the plaintiffs are also very powerful, they can point out the mistakes of Socrates, the plaintiffs can turn the situation in their favor, which shows that the accusations of the plaintiffs are very sharp. Don't think that it is not an opponent of the same level, the plaintiff can point out the mistakes of Socrates, where is it.

The accuser is not referring to what Socrates said, but to Socrates always turning around on the present accusations and not answering, he only said the past.

In doing so, Socrates is stalling for time, and his avoidance is too obvious. In addition, this makes it impossible for the current plaintiff to file a lawsuit.

Although Socrates, as an apologist, had the right to defend himself. But the targets of the events he chose were all directed to the previous ones. The court cannot deprive him of his right to defend himself, and you can choose the content of your defense as much as you like, and I can choose not to adopt it.

However, the court must listen to Socrates in its entirety.

This trial was a torment for every participant! Socrates was tired of chattering and talking about the past. Many of the participants at the trial scene dozed off......

Now Socrates needed an incentive to startle all the listeners out of the gloomy sound, or they would all fall asleep.

Therefore, the fact that "Kerryfun" asked the witch in the temple could awaken the spirit of the jury! It could also enhance the credibility of his words.

Vote Su 67 vs 33 votes lead.

(Game 13)

In the last game, Socrates was a failure! He was right, but he didn't take into account the feelings of the jury and the people in the audience.

This trial, said to be a defense, should be a speech. The specific people and events mentioned by Socrates aroused the anger of most of the people in the court! It was tantamount to offending the self-esteem of the majority of the people.

At this point, some people will definitely ask: Socrates, you say that others can't do this, that can't do that, just you? You are crazy! I think whoever is better than you.

Note: At this time, Socrates' defense had entered a white heat, and his previous defense had angered the self-esteem of many people!

As mentioned earlier, at first he was only an Athenian upper-class man who scolded Socrates, but the general public still respected him. But what about now? After his complaint above, he offended more people. In the current situation, not only the upper class people scolded Socrates, but now even ordinary people began to scold him. Important: Socrates' statement, while true, hurts most people's self-esteem.

By deduction, we find that this defense of Socrates was a failure.

He made two mistakes: First, he chose the wrong question, and if he hadn't talked about "Kai Ruifeng", it would not have led to the current decline.

The second is the most serious, and Socrates answers what should have been a defense of a speech as a defense. That is to say: Socrates is in the wrong place between his speech and his defense.

Speeches are meant to arouse the emotions of the audience, and he has always done a good job before, but here he has a fork.

The trial was to be voted on, and without a two-thirds of the vote, Socrates would have been convicted.

In the previous session, Socrates gave up the state of "oratory" and entered the state of "defense"; This led to him, offending the emotions of the entire court participants. His approval rating is estimated to have dropped to just 37 percent, with a few of them being neutral.

Important: Socrates should not jump from a state of speech to a state of defense. This jump made him angry with the emotions of the court participants!

Let's put it this way, Socrates has always had the initiative in the front, and at that time the approval rating was about 67%, and he had a chance of winning the case.

But since he went from a state of speech to a state of defense, it was a mistake.

First of all, Socrates did not think clearly about the consequences of the incident! In his defense, he emphasized "reason" rather than "emotion." In his speech, he talked about "feelings" rather than "reason," and Socrates chose the wrong topic this time.

He should not have jumped from "speech" to "defense", and Socrates was defeated very badly in this link! Only 37 percent of the 100 participants in the court still supported him, and if he continued like this, he would be convicted.

Personal opinion: Now I really sweat for Socrates, if in the later defense, he can't turn the situation around, then he... It's dead.

Earlier, I thought he would have to break the noise and wake up the dozing jury, but it didn't seem to be such a big move. He threw a thunderbolt and woke up the entire jury and the audience.

This movement... It's too big!

Now the whole court scene began to hate Socrates...... Votes: Sue 37 vs. 63 votes behind.

Thanks for reading, welcome to follow!

Author: He Yongqi

Note: Interpretation of "Defense", the next part "Finale" - to be continued.........