Abstract

West takes issue with the traditional interpretation of the Apology, according to which Socrates’ conviction on charges of impiety and corruption of the young was unjust, the manner of his defense noble and beautiful, his rhetorical manner a model of straightforward simplicity and truth. West’s account bears an affinity to a more recent interpretation which holds that the politically reactionary Socrates was justly condemned for being out of tune with the progressive Athenian democracy. Yet this agreement is a superficial one. While he argues that Socrates was guilty as charged, West is no simple partisan of democracy. His criticism of Socrates is based on a thorough understanding of what the original charges implied; he may be characterized as a critic of the Socratic enterprise who is himself informed by Socrates’ questions. "In order to understand Socrates, it is necessary to contradict him; those who accept what Socrates says without question will never learn the truth."