Les 4 premières minutes suffisent à comprendre qu’ils n’étaient vraiment pas intelligents, et cette phrase le confirme « …Son crime nous fait craindre que se déchaine contre notre patrie et contre Athènes, la juste colère de nos Dieux « , absolument remarquable d’imbécilités. Grèce Antique, 2025, même combat. Ciao.
The context of the trial is almost always as important or more important than the person being tried or the decision that was rendered. However, this is absent from the Socratic discourse. Socrates' trial took place in 399 BC or 400 BC, so just a few years after the end of the Peloponnesian War (431 BC to 404 BC). Socrates survived the war and the epidemic that befell Athens, taking the life of its greatest political leader. When he was put on trial he could have said: "The rigors of the Peloponnesian war troubled the minds of my accusers, because they also lost their friends, relatives and political leaders. It turned them against me because I always criticized those people while they were alive. My accusers suffer because of an event that I did not cause. The war was not started by me and I was old to fight in it. Will their suffering be lessened if they make me suffer? No, because their friends, relatives and political leaders will remain dead. My accusers could have said that I spread the disease that killed so many people during the war. If that were the case I myself would already be dead like most people who got sick. Who among the survivors can accuse me of having survived without accusing himself?" And so on... Socrates however does not draw attention away from himself by using the context in which he was tried, something that would be admissible and would probably be done by any lawyer (believe me I am a lawyer and I know what I am talking about). No, he kept within the confines of the accusation, and at best examined the character of his accusers. This cannot be considered a good legal strategy either, because Socrates knew that he was unpopular and that flaunting his unpopularity would be an almost certain way to get a conviction. This is where things get more interesting: Socrates said that it was better to suffer an injustice than to act unfairly. And yet he practically forced his judges to convict him by refusing to use a defense strategy that could have led to his acquittal. So Socratic's defense speech may be considered an exceptionally ironic one: it was the philosopher's last sting at an unjust city condemned by him to pass another unjust judgment.
C'est tres intéressant, merci.
Il se faisait payer...en.nature.
chaires fraîches croquantes 😂😂😂
Un vrai Gourou !ce Socrate !!
La pédérastie était largement répandue à l'époque.
Preums !
Les 4 premières minutes suffisent à comprendre qu’ils n’étaient vraiment pas intelligents, et cette phrase le confirme « …Son crime nous fait craindre que se déchaine contre notre patrie et contre Athènes, la juste colère de nos Dieux « , absolument remarquable d’imbécilités. Grèce Antique, 2025, même combat. Ciao.
Sauf que si tu écoutes le reste de l’entretien on comprend que l’accusation en impiété était un prétexte…
The context of the trial is almost always as important or more important than the person being tried or the decision that was rendered. However, this is absent from the Socratic discourse. Socrates' trial took place in 399 BC or 400 BC, so just a few years after the end of the Peloponnesian War (431 BC to 404 BC). Socrates survived the war and the epidemic that befell Athens, taking the life of its greatest political leader. When he was put on trial he could have said:
"The rigors of the Peloponnesian war troubled the minds of my accusers, because they also lost their friends, relatives and political leaders. It turned them against me because I always criticized those people while they were alive. My accusers suffer because of an event that I did not cause. The war was not started by me and I was old to fight in it. Will their suffering be lessened if they make me suffer? No, because their friends, relatives and political leaders will remain dead.
My accusers could have said that I spread the disease that killed so many people during the war. If that were the case I myself would already be dead like most people who got sick. Who among the survivors can accuse me of having survived without accusing himself?" And so on...
Socrates however does not draw attention away from himself by using the context in which he was tried, something that would be admissible and would probably be done by any lawyer (believe me I am a lawyer and I know what I am talking about). No, he kept within the confines of the accusation, and at best examined the character of his accusers. This cannot be considered a good legal strategy either, because Socrates knew that he was unpopular and that flaunting his unpopularity would be an almost certain way to get a conviction.
This is where things get more interesting: Socrates said that it was better to suffer an injustice than to act unfairly. And yet he practically forced his judges to convict him by refusing to use a defense strategy that could have led to his acquittal. So Socratic's defense speech may be considered an exceptionally ironic one: it was the philosopher's last sting at an unjust city condemned by him to pass another unjust judgment.