We should really get rid of those myths. Yes Socrates was executed. Yes he was teaching students philosophy/science (there was no difference in antiquity). The guy who told his story was a student of his, a big fan of him, and absolutely did not agree with the judgement of the people, but there's a huge but here:
You may want to google "thirty tyrants" and read a bit and you'll quickly see there's more to the story. The claim is that Socrates was executed for constantly criticizing the state, for putting science and philosophy/ethics ahead of the interests of the state, and thereby corrupting youth and his students. That, taken in 20th century context sounds bad, really, really bad. However, here's what they meant by that statement : not once but twice the people he taught tried to overthrow the state. You see, Socrates hated democracy with a passion, to the point that he advocated using mass violence and killing to end it.
One of these coup attempts by his students succeeded and proceeded to execute >5% of the total population of Athens in a little over a year for various imagined offences. One of the tyrants, their leader if they had any, a relative and pupil of Socrates is described as "determined to remake the city and kill democracy whatever the cost in lives". While Socrates distanced himself from their actions, and even managed to make enemies of some of them, there's good reason to believe he was involved.
When the tyrants were overthrown, democracy was reinstated, and Socrates was left unpunished on condition of not teaching anymore. It didn't take him a week to violate this condition, and once again he raged against the state and it didn't take long for his students to attempt yet another coup. Shortly after that coup attempt was thwarted, again with loss of life, he was executed, right after his students who attempted the coup and survived were.
Socrates was a man who believed, taught and fought for the idea that "those in the moral right" (and he meant him and his students) should control all of society, and he kept fighting for it after having demonstrated what happened (ie. the killing of >5% of Athens).
Was this guy executed "for his defense of science" ? No. He was a dangerous lunatic that actually managed to organize an armed force that successfully (for a time) tried to implement his view of a "morally correct" society by mass murder.
it may be more help to link sources that support your conclusions
i admit a lack of historical context to many texts i have read and my only exposure to 'the thirty' is through plato without any supplemental research of my own on the subject so my prejudices are his
because of this i did as you suggested and did a search for 'thirty tyrants' and i only found material that conflicted and confused your comment as here stated
from the wiki(o):
Due to their desire to remain in complete control
over Athens, the Thirty sought to exile or kill anyone
who outwardly opposed their regime. Socrates was one of
the several citizens who chose to oppose the oligarchy,
and with that opposition came the endangerment of his life.
which appears to state the opposite of what you claimed
also from the wiki you can see that the leader of the thirty, critias, was indeed a former pupil of socrates, but the relationship seems to have ended and as such noting critias was a pupil of socrates seems to be judging the teacher for the ills of the student
plato talks about the thirty a number of times..
from his seventh letter(i):
In my youth I went through the same
experience as many other men. I fancied
that if, early in life, I became my own
master, I should at once embark on a
political career.
And I found myself confronted with the
following occurrences in the public
affairs of my own city. The existing
constitution being generally condemned,
a revolution took place, and fifty-one men
came to the front as rulers of the
revolutionary government, namely eleven in
the city and ten in the Peiraeus-each of
these bodies being in charge of the market
and municipal matters-while thirty were
appointed rulers with full powers over
public affairs as a whole.
Some of these were relatives and acquaintances
of mine, and they at once invited me to share
in their doings, as something to which I had
a claim. The effect on me was not surprising
in the case of a young man.
I considered that they would, of course, so
manage the State as to bring men out of a bad
way of life into a good one. So I watched them
very closely to see what they would do.
And seeing, as I did, that in quite a short time
they made the former government seem by comparison
something precious as gold-for among other things
they tried to send a friend of mine, the aged
Socrates, whom I should scarcely scruple to describe
as the most upright man of that day, with some other
persons to carry off one of the citizens by force to
execution, in order that, whether he wished it, or not,
he might share the guilt of their conduct; but he
would not obey them, risking all consequences in
preference to becoming a partner in their iniquitous
deeds-seeing all these things and others of the same
kind on a considerable scale, I disapproved of their
proceedings, and withdrew from any connection with
the abuses of the time.
here we have a politically minded plato with a sudden opportunity to become a politician because his friends, socratic pupil associations, and family just performed a coup on what was considered a generally reviled existing governing body
but decided to wait a bit and found his reluctance supported as they quickly became tyrants making the previously reviled government 'seem by comparison something precious as gold'
then he goes on to recount how socrates put himself at great risk to refuse to gather dissidents for execution
a story that plato recounts in socrates' apology(ii) in first person through socrates:
But when the oligarchy of the Thirty was in power,
they sent for me and four others into the rotunda,
and bade us bring Leon the Salaminian from Salamis,
as they wanted to execute him.
This was a specimen of the sort of commands which
they were always giving with the view of implicating
as many as possible in their crimes; and then I
showed, not in words only, but in deed, that, if I
may be allowed to use such an expression, I cared
not a straw for death, and that my only fear was the
fear of doing an unrighteous or unholy thing.
For the strong arm of that oppressive power did not
frighten me into doing wrong; and when we came out
of the rotunda the other four went to Salamis and
fetched Leon, but I went quietly home.
For which I might have lost my life, had not the
power of the Thirty shortly afterwards come to an
end. And to this many will witness.
so according to plato, and apparently many who will bear witness, socrates refused a call from the thirty to execute one who spoke against their tyranny
from salamis' wiki(iii):
From these texts, it is clear that Leon of Salamis
had an honorable reputation, he was put to death by
the Thirty, and his execution was publicly recognized
as unjust and unwarranted.
and a widely believed wrongful execution at that
investigating your claims has found me wholly opposing conclusions
i am indifferent to the righteousness of socrates the man but your slander stands unsupported
there is plenty in plato that could be argued the work of lunacy but i am unable to find your purported support for this tyranny
this quote from the apology(ii) is one of my favourites:
Is there not here conceit of knowledge, which is a
disgraceful sort of ignorance? And this is the point
in which, as I think, I am superior to men in general,
and in which I might perhaps fancy myself wiser than
other men, - that whereas I know but little of the
world below, I do not suppose that I know
i free myself from thinking i know that which i am without knowledge of
You have most of the data there. I think you just need to read through it again. You will find that Socrates taught the thirty tyrants, that he was a fierce enemy of democracy (which was most definitely not a reviled body at the time, unless you mean reviled by Socrates and his pupils. It was generally agreed that the democracy was less effective than "something else", but very little agreement on which exact "something else" would be better. For Socrates, morals, as defined by the philosophers (ie. him) was superior).
It is true that a while after the coup had happened Socrates at one point refused to cooperate with them. But what happened there was that he made an enemy of one (or perhaps more) of the thirty tyrants, who then challenged him to bring Leon of Salamis for execution (which, to me seems to indicate he was part of the thirty tyrants government, but that isn't the general interpretation). Shortly after that the thirty tyrants were overthrown.
Next there was a decision by the new government, that Socrates was not directly guilty, but was never to teach again, never to have students again. He immediately violated it, and after a while there was another incident by his students against the state. They were executed and immediately after so was Socrates.
My issue is that while Socrates getting executed "for teaching science", while technically correct, fails to mention that his teaching of science was closely related to a mass murder that happened in Athens, followed by him committing an immediate violation of the outcome of a "court case", which was clearly related to yet another incident, an attack on "parliament".
Would you have let Socrates continue his teaching after such events, after one in 20 of the people you knew got executed by his students, and he is involved in an attempt to repeat that experience ? Whilst of course the decision to execute him does not pass a 21st century moral test, don't you think that if this happened in America today that he would disappear behind bars for a few decades ? It is hard, I think, to argue the case that Socrates should have gone free here.
I feel leaving this critical context out does disrespect to the story and paints a wholly wrong picture of both who Socrates was and even to an extent leaves out critical context when it comes to his teachings. Socrates believed in there being one correct answer to any and all questions (maybe unknown, but still a singular correct answer, a grand truth), to be provided by philosophers, that had to be imposed on everyone. His disagreement with the thirty tyrants was not the manner of their governing, but the content.
again, i am indifferent to the righteousness of socrates the man
he was a fierce enemy of democracy
[citation needed] seriously, what are you talking about? democracy the idea? dare i say democracy's platonic ideal? if i oppose a democracy's policy does that mean i oppose democracy?
(which was most definitely not a reviled body at the
time, unless you mean reviled by Socrates and his pupils
[citation needed] show me a source that states the pretyrant governing body that was overthrown that plato states was 'generally condemned' was in truth 'generally accepted'?
Would you have let Socrates continue his teaching
after such events, after one in 20 of the people
you knew got executed by his students
well, yes, but that is because i support freedom of speech
if you want to make it an argument of militanism then i suppose you would have to show that all of these people were students of socrates, stead solely the one noted as critias, and further that their efforts were weaponised from ideas which were planted and sowed by socrates
what things did socrates teach these people that you would actively censor from the public forum?
Socrates believed in there being one correct
answer to any and all questions (maybe unknown,
but still a singular correct answer, a grand
truth), to be provided by philosophers, that had
to be imposed on everyone.
[citation needed] also, if you can explain, if this even were the case, how it demonstrably leads to killing?
I feel leaving this critical context out does
disrespect to the story and paints a wholly wrong
picture
can you cite the context i left out? if i did, it was completely unintended and i encourage any greater context you can lend
i take grave issue with your editorial exposition
stop telling people how they should think and offer up the sources that led you to your conclusions and let people think for themselves
Would you have let Socrates continue his teaching
after such events, after one in 20 of the people
you knew got executed by his students
well, yes, but that is because i support freedom of speech
If you consider that reasonable then perhaps we simply have a huge difference of opinion here. I would put forward that a hell of a lot of people would object to teaching an ideology after that same group committed mass murder. And by object I mean mobs would hunt them down and kill them (which is pretty much what happened).
also, if you can explain, if this even were the case, how it demonstrably leads to killing?
It obviously led to killings in that period of history of Athens. Whether this was solely the fault of the ideology, or the man is an open question that cannot ever be answered to any modern standard. In that particular piece of history, however, most people would obviously consider it true, for they just saw the ideology's adherents do it before their very eyes.
The standard you're using, innocent until proven guilty, is a standard that would only make it's first appearance in law 6 centuries after these events ... so I would say that applying such a standard here is not a reasonable judgement to make. These people worked from the principle that the majority of free men is always right. The "beyond reasonable doubt" part is more recent still, a set of legal rules that would not be used in court cases until 1800, 2200 year after this case.
Yes Socrates was convicted simply on the fact that more people shouted he was guilty than that shouted he was innocent. However this was a very high legal standard for the time that should not be looked down upon. In most places and times during history, a single ruler would simply decide on his gut feeling if the person was guilty, usually without so much as hearing the accused's version of events and extract a far crueler punishment. Socrates was given a chance to talk to the crowds and explain to them why he was not guilty. He could not convince them. That's how justice worked in Athens.
You may want to google "thirty tyrants" and read a bit and you'll quickly see there's more to the story. The claim is that Socrates was executed for constantly criticizing the state, for putting science and philosophy/ethics ahead of the interests of the state, and thereby corrupting youth and his students. That, taken in 20th century context sounds bad, really, really bad. However, here's what they meant by that statement : not once but twice the people he taught tried to overthrow the state. You see, Socrates hated democracy with a passion, to the point that he advocated using mass violence and killing to end it.
One of these coup attempts by his students succeeded and proceeded to execute >5% of the total population of Athens in a little over a year for various imagined offences. One of the tyrants, their leader if they had any, a relative and pupil of Socrates is described as "determined to remake the city and kill democracy whatever the cost in lives". While Socrates distanced himself from their actions, and even managed to make enemies of some of them, there's good reason to believe he was involved.
When the tyrants were overthrown, democracy was reinstated, and Socrates was left unpunished on condition of not teaching anymore. It didn't take him a week to violate this condition, and once again he raged against the state and it didn't take long for his students to attempt yet another coup. Shortly after that coup attempt was thwarted, again with loss of life, he was executed, right after his students who attempted the coup and survived were.
Socrates was a man who believed, taught and fought for the idea that "those in the moral right" (and he meant him and his students) should control all of society, and he kept fighting for it after having demonstrated what happened (ie. the killing of >5% of Athens).
Was this guy executed "for his defense of science" ? No. He was a dangerous lunatic that actually managed to organize an armed force that successfully (for a time) tried to implement his view of a "morally correct" society by mass murder.