Brandon Owens. Socratic. Mar. 1, 2007

The Athens Game is a fantastic idea, which was a delight to partake in. A terrifyingly fun concept, it forces the student to become even more immersed in the material. Each player must know not only their own role, but also that of their opponents, prompting a more in depth study to assure each player’s rhetorical victory over the other players and their factions. Anticipation and preparation were made to seem even more essential in this course as compared to the more traditionally organized courses. If a player were to come into class unprepared without having thoroughly thought through their argument and that of her opponents, it would be that much more obvious and that player would not only have let themselves down, but also their faction.
Being a Socratic was truly enjoyable. The opportunity to argue for philosophy, in its original sense, the chance to be persecuted for believing something other than that which the vast majority values and holds dear, and the attempt to pursue a completely anti-democratic agenda in an environment which strongly supports such ideas was difficult but rewarding. Supporting ideas, which altogether oppose those which are from a very early age instilled within the minds of most Americans, hopefully provided some of the players with some sort of perspective pertaining to the foundation and origin of their indoctrinated democracy and the philosophies that support and condemn her.
The problems with the game are few indeed but exist nonetheless. It seems that the time constraint on the game does not always properly allow the player to become fully accustomed to their role, until much later in the game. There is a lot of background information that should be covered in order to better understand each player’s character and the culture of the time that each player is unable to receive. However, little can be done about such restrictions.
Another critique of the game, which I found to be both amusing and frustrating, is the way in which the game is seemingly stacked against certain factions, from my own experience this appears to be the case with the Socratics, which I acknowledge is historically accurate. At first, I found this to be quite troublesome and often leaving me with a feeling of despair. However, later I found this to be quite enjoyable and to inspire that much more hope and determination to do more and do so better. This feeling of a stacked game results, in part, from the point system employed in the game. Each player will always attempt to do what will get her and her faction the most points. Should a well put together, persuasive, and logical argument be presented by any faction, it will fall on deaf ears. Its persuasiveness will be of little consequence. Appeals to reason are completely useless in such an environment, and this fact is damning to a Socratic argument, not that they had a very good chance in antiquity either.
I also disagree with the choice of Plato’s Republic as the core text used in the game to depict the role of each of the factions. I felt that the material was easily grasped, but difficult to implement. The Republic seems to be more concerned with the making of the just individual. The example of the just polis Plato describes is secondary and is intended to serve as large scale model of the appropriate individual. Each separate form of government represents a further digression from the just balance of wisdom, courage, and temperance which should occupy this just individual. Whether any Greek polis could actually have lived by such a model seems unlikely due to the large quantity of people that would be necessary in such a polis in which each person performs only one task. Sparta comes the closest to accomplishing this task, as they field a standing military. However, Sparta must enslave other Greeks to serve as helots and farm in their stead in order to do so. Sparta’s form of government, tymocracy, is the first form of corruption from the ideal that Plato proposes. Plato’s just polis seems to be exactly what he states that it is: an illustration.
My performance in the game varied. I felt as though I had a good understanding of the material and the culture, but was sometimes hesitant to speak as often as a Socratic should. A Socratic’s duty is often to interrupt and attempt to bring about a sense of clarity and to remind the assembly of the necessity of just decisions based on wisdom. I often failed to do so. Fortunately my partner never failed her faction in this respect and made up for my silence. Although, at times speaking felt rather irrelevant, as each time a faction spoke it only served to prove a point made prior by the Socratics.
I feel that we, as the Socratic faction, did well during the game. We attempted to always stay within the perimeter set up by Plato’s Socrates and to resemble him and his way of thinking and acting as closely as possible. The faction knew its goals and, despite the realization that winning was highly improbable, went for them. We always attempted to portray a manner of intellectual, and therefore moral, superiority and were rarely hesitant to point that out, especially during the last three quarters of the game when this fact became increasingly more evident.
Upon seeing the assembly in action, it is easy to imagine that Plato’s Socrates may, indeed, have had a point.

After the initial meeting of class I was determined that a faction would be best for me, so that I could have others to support my ideas and give me feedback. However being an oligarch wasn't what I had in mind. I thourghly enjoyed the game and I can say will confidence that this has been and probably will be the most fun I will have in any class offered by the University.

One thing that I feel that was left out of the game for faction members was personal history, I would read about the indeterminates and here about their family yet I had none. I think that this could have given each person more persuavive power being able to speak about their families in a concrete manner. I also think that in the end people are going to vote for whatever gives them points on the victory objectives chart, and that the game is flawed in that respect. When trying to get things passed I felt like I was fighting an uphill battle. All of the indeterminates seemed to favor the democrats no matter how much I persuaded and offered money. Their goals would be accomplished through the goals of the democrats and therefore they didn't need us.

One thing that worked against me was that everything I was supposed to believe in was contratry to what I acutaully believed. We know that democracy is the best form of government, and I therefore had a somewhat hard time presenting arguments against it. When the education debate came up I really had to think about how I would tell people that public education wasn't the best thing. I was a public school kid and wouldn't have had an education without it. That really streched my mind and forced me to think outside of the box and find a way to agrue against the democrats. I think that in the end having to go against what you believe was a real learning experience. It forced me to think about why I supported the things that I did and evaluate whether they were the best for our country.

I don't think that I played horribly, however I could have done more in the beginning to help my faction win more in the end. It wasn't until about halfway through the game that I along with my fellow oligarchs realized that the democrats had already broken a deal with some indeterminates. If I would have approached them from the beginning and gotten them on our side then perphaps the game would have turned out differently. I feel that although the democrats were our true enemies that the rich atlete posed the greatest threat to us. He was for most things democratic and therefore was a powerful ally to them, helping them to buy off other indeterminates. I think that I should have tried to get him to our cause, leaving the democrats without many resources.

However I feel that my factions greatest mistake was not planning what we would do after we forced ourselves into power. In retrospect I think that so much went into planning the takeover that we forgot to realize that the democrats would probably fight back and that we should have disposed of many of them first thing. If as much planning went into after the takeover as did the planning then we probably could have succeeded in remaining in power and winning the game. However I am still pleased that we did gain power, even if only for 10 minutes.

Although we did not get many oligarchic things accomplished, I feel that I played adequatly and offered some good counter-arugements to most of the democrats proposals. However I feel, as I mentioned earlier, that the game is flawed because everyone will vote for what gets them points in the end. Even if I presented a spectatular agruement against a democrats proposal, if it was in the best interest of your character you would vote for it anyway, even if the argument changed your mind about the proposal. I can't wait for the China game to get underway and I think I will do a much better job at it because I have realized what I did wrong in this game and will use that to play better in the next one.

Are we supposed to post our final papers?

The Athens game thrilled and engaged me. Every time I entered the classroom, I could not wait for the game to commence and see how events would play out. Although I feel that I could have done more research on Athenian history, customs, and so on, I am not terribly interested in all of history. Even with an interest in Greek mythology, I did not have enough background knowledge to state anything in detail definitively. Regardless of interest or familiarity with Athenian history, I played true to the Middling Farmer until the last assembly meeting. I placed emphasis on compromise whenever I met with factions and other indeterminates. Overall, I played the Athens game adequately.

With a mere three pages of vague information, I felt that I was cheated in the goals department. I did speak with the Gamemaster per instructions; however that did not shed much light on my character and his goals. With the advantage of having some character history, such as having fought as a hoplite in the Peloponnesian war and owning a farm that was not completely ravaged by the Thirty Tyrants, I understood that keeping my family, my farm, and myself alive were integral to my character. "Middling" was the best description of any goals my character would have. Fortunately, I try to find compromises to most situations naturally. I assumed that my role would be simple because of similarities shared between my character and myself. Therefore, finding the middle path entailed finding out what each faction desired regarding the current subject and creatively solving the problem. However, the obstacle I encountered most frequently was that the "moderate" factions, which were the Oligarchs and the Moderate Democrats, refused to compromise enough to satisfy the other party. I was at a loss.

Reconciliation was the only sure-fire agreement between the two opposing factions. According to my understanding, reconciliation had to be passed in order for the game to progress. If reconciliation is written into the game plan, how could I consider agreement, which would occur regardless of my character's input, a victory? During the first assembly meeting, I was honestly surprised by the lack of support for the compromise I proposed regarding mention of the Thirty Tyrants. This incident clearly indicated that the middle path would be much harder to achieve than I originally thought.

For the majority of the issues discussed throughout the assembly meetings, I was prepared, but not to the extent I would have liked. Regarding current concerns, I contacted the faction members; I determined what they planned to discuss. Then, I decided on a decent compromise or an alternate route. However, rarely did my compromise have any effect on the assembly. One anomaly was the Bazaar of Education proposal. Almost all of the factions commended the unorthodox nature of the proposal. As time ran out, I was never able pass the proposal in the assumed landslide of approval.

The last assembly meeting proved that Athens should be relieved that we never ruled. With such extreme circumstances, compromise was inconceivable. In retrospect, I should have voted in favor of the council as stated by the Oligarchs. If memory serves, then the proposal would have failed by a tied vote. From this point, I could have proposed the amendment to limit membership. The only reason I wanted to limit the membership was because of the overwhelming imbalance of faction members within the military council. With middle ground comes balance. If any faction were to have an unfair advantage in such a council, I would have been unable to suggest any compromise with possibility of the proposal being considered.

Although I loved the alignment between the Middling Farmer's desires for the assembly and my own, I would have preferred more guidelines than those given in the character synopsis. As the game progressed, I fell into a routine of trying to stay one step ahead of the factions. I became competent in handling the Middling Farmer's role. However, my capability stemmed from the experience I gained, not from desire to be an indeterminate. I would have been better prepared for such an indistinct character if I had prior experience. Even though I did not play the game perfectly, I feel that the role of the Middling Farmer was executed justly.

The Fishmonger: A Personal Evaluation

Ah, the Fishmonger, what an annoying man. He was generally skeptical and had a penchant for interrupting people when they spoke. Overall, he was not a nice guy. But, he did achieve all of his victory objectives. Never once did anyone find out that he owed a metic so much money that his very freedom lie in the balance. He paid off his debt, and stayed alive. He retained his rights as a citizen. All in all, he was victorious.
I feel I played well, though I know I could have done better. I met my victory objectives and was able to differentiate between the Fishmonger’s needs and my personal ethics. I spoke loudly and frequently, though rarely at the podium and when I did stand at the podium, it was usually to support other people’s proposals. I could have done more in that regard; I had a few good speeches, but not the opportunity to make them. The topics never came up, or when they did, I was not prepared to deliver them. I could have forced the issue, but it would have been foolish. Working behind the scenes by bringing up the topics in party meetings was more beneficial to my character’s needs because he was such an annoying man that the whole group would have silenced him faster than Socrates, but individual parties needed the support of my vote, so convincing them was much easier. I guess I was kind of like a fifth century BC lobbyist. No wonder people didn’t like me.
I know I should have spoken at the podium more often. I know I should have pushed for rebuilding the Athenian empire. I also should have gotten in more with all four parties, rather than just two (the Democrats). It was nice, though, knowing exactly who I was and what I stood for. I noticed some of the “party” players really had nothing more than their victory objectives going for them. They didn’t have jobs or families to worry about like the indeterminates did. They played well; I’m not saying they didn’t, but it might have added more realism to the game if they had such matters to worry about.
I think the game could have used improvement. As I said, the “party” members were two-dimensional by design and some of the indeterminates were practically in certain parties’ pockets, even myself. Winning the game was rarely based on the speeches given, but on the victory objectives of the players. No matter how wonderfully the Socratics spoke, I could only vote with the Democrats if I wanted to win. The Moderate Democrats and the Oligarchs could reach no compromises because it was “in their best interests” to work with the more extreme parties. In this way, the game is flawed. People in real life have personal agendas, compromises are made, and people can change their minds after listening to a speech. The game may have been flawed, but at least it was fun.

Game Advisory from the Gamemaster

Socratic Katie Putnam will preside over tomorrow's session of the Assembly (our final session of the Athens game), and Radical Democrat Melissa/ Thrasybulus will be the herald.

We will begin by voting on the proposals made Thursday, in the order of proposal: Oligarch David's proposal for an emergency council, Rich Athlete Nick's proposal to send him on a mission to protect Athens' grain supply, and Radical democrat Kainien's proposal to pay citizens to attend the Assembly.

The Assembly will proceed tomorrow under the following rule: when a proposal is made, the Assembly must vote on that proposal before moving on to other business.

Two laws already enacted by the Assembly remain unclaimed: from the Assembly of February 13, "Government positions are to be chosen by lot" and "Generals are to be elected by the assembly". The water clock is running out, so lay claim to these orphans ASAP!

Herald's Notes 12/22/07 CONT'D

Archon Christine presides over the last two speakers for Socrates' defense.

Arnold, the non-socratic farmer who became well acquainted with Socrates, pointed out several matters that need to be taken into consideration. It seems that the Radical and Moderate Democrats are focusing solely on personal gain. They took the chance to vote away from a "poor" socratic and would do anything to dispose of someone who doesn't agree. In regards to the claims of impiety, Arnold stated that the democrats have failed to provide any proof. Socrates sacrifices when necesary. Socrates is not going against the gods, or suggesting anything else; he feels that Hesiod and Homer have cast the gods in a poor light. Arnold asks how we can convict someone who simply asks questions. Finishing his speech, Arnold reiterates that Socrates is a law abiding citizen who has done nothing wrong.

Arnold retakes his seat giving the podium to Oligarch Shannon.

Shannon addresses corrupting the youth. He points out that relations with young male followers is nothing new. Socrates does not receive payment, nor does he recognize anyone as students. He has voluntary followers. Shannon emphasizes the speeches preceding his with Socrates' only "crime" is that of asking questions.

With less applause than before, Shannon sits again.

Archon Christine calls for a vote.

The stones are in favor of finding Socrates guilty: 5-4

General Thrasybulus takes the podium and proposes, on behalf of all the democrats, exile for twenty years.

Socratic Brandon proposes erecting a memorial outside of Athens in honor of Socrates.

Calling for a vote regarding Socrates' penalty, the outcome is in favor of the General: 6-3

Game Advisory from the Gamemaster

We will resume the trial of Socrates tomorrow, with two more speeches in defense of Socrates followed by the vote on guilt and, if necessary, the penalty phase. If time remains, we will return to Assembly, with moderate democrat Julianna presiding and radical democrat Melissa/Thrasybulus as herald. We will be in Assembly next Tuesday (unless another trial, bad weather, or some other unforeseen circumstance prevents us), and if necessary, I will designate another President and Herald.

One of you said yesterday during the trial that the gods are omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. That claim presents an interesting problem about the nature of the gods. While the gods may be omniscient, traditional stories suggest that the gods weren't always paying attention to human affairs. In Iliad 1, for example, the Olympian gods have gone off to Ethiopia and Achilles’ mother, the sea-goddess Thetis, apparently can’t intervene with Zeus on Achilles’ behalf until the Olympians return to Olympos. In Iliad 16, Zeus is unable to prevent the death of his own son Sarpedon. Myth and literature contain unsettling stories, as Socrates suggests in the Republic.

The Gamemaster is neither omnipotent nor omniscient nor omnipresent; he believes that he may have encouraged deal-making in the trial of Socrates. While the game rules say nothing about jury tampering or bribery, scholars of the Athenian court system seem to agree that its mechanisms (such as random selection of jurors and the large number of jurors in individual trials) prevented tampering or bribery. My bad. Do keep in mind that IF jury-tampering has occurred in the Athens of Old College 100, the offenders may find themselves on trial.

Herald’s notes from the 6^th session [February 20, 2007]:

Today’s assembly began with a bang as the Herald [Tasha, the middling farmer] sacrificed the pig. Praying to Zeus, he began, “we give you, Zeus, king of gods, the head of this pig. Please show us wisdom in these proceedings. And to Athena, dear goddess who kindly watches over our beloved Athens, we give you the body, the heart, the meat of this pig. Allow passion to course through this trial. We will listen to your decision, for you are fair and just. Allow us to find your proper path, the middle path.”

Archon and president, Thrasybulus, called forth archon Christine to propose the punishment for the Socratic in question. Archon Christine proposes that Katie will be suspended from the jury/dikasterion for a minimum of two sessions from Athenian trials except as a defendant of his own person. After the short proposal, he retakes his seat amongst the radical democrats

Taking the podium, Katie, the Socratic, reiterates his apologies stating he had been “humbled at our last assembly meeting” and is “grateful for the experience because it has shown [him] the importance of constant study.” He continued with a Socratic air, thankful for his wisdom, not thankful for his unrefined tongue. After a lengthy speech, he finally proposes an alternate punishment: being that he broke the law, and that the same law states very clearly what the punishment should be, he will offer to pay the amount of money stated in the law. From this point, he justifies his logic by reminding the jury of Athens’ ever-constant need for money.

Before the jury may vote, someone must front the money for the intelligent, but lacking, Socratic.

Shannon, an oligarch, accepts paying the 200 drachma.

The vote turned out to be in favor of the prosecutor: 5-3

The jury recesses per the Gamemaster for preparation of the next trial.

Archon Christine, presiding over Socrates’ trial, allows Archon Thrasybulus, chief prosecutor, to begin: He begins a long diatribe with Socrates' history with the Oracle. Pointing out that he teaches Sophists who "train people in the art of rhetoric so that hungry political leaders are able to sway the assembly," he claims that Socrates is the one who has taught many people who have led Athens astray in the past. The General declares that Athenians ought to learn education, not rhetoric, in order to avoid situations such as Aristophanes. Ending his speech with a mention of the failed play Clouds, the General relinquishes the argument hoping that we will have attentive ears.

The General Thrasybulus passes off the podium to the esteemed Moderate Democrat Julianna.

Beginning with the obvious, our esteemed moderate reminds the jury that hope for the future Athens lies in our sons, however that particular future is insecure. There are those who would pervert the minds of our sons and have them believe lies about our glorious democracy. Using names such as a "smooth-tongued viper" that would corrupt our children, he states that Socrates has led the youth astray by coercing them to believe that undermining our democracy is acceptable. In several instances, our esteemed Moderate Democrat enunciates his lack of words to express the danger, the grievous affect upon our youth. Finding words once more, he says that some will say that Socrates is harmless, simply presenting ideas to our youth. He then continues with his belief that he is not a simpleton, and that it is has been a long time since he thought ideas weaker than the sword. If anything, he believes that they are far more insidious, for one knows an enemy when he thrusts a sword into one's heart. Not wishing for Socrates to become a martyr, our esteemed moderate speaks of exile as the proper punishment.

After finishing his speech, with a little more applause than Thrasybulus’ previous finish, the esteemed Moderate Democrat resumes his seat, while Thrasybulus again approaches the podium.

This time, the General speaks of the charges brought against Socrates regarding impiety. "What is Athens if she is not her traditions?" he asks. "Our gods have made their presence clear here in the city from the place where Poseidon struck his trident into the earth on the Acropolis to Athena smiling down on us from above." He accuses Socrates as comparing himself to a demi-god. Then, he continues to accuse Socrates of polluting our minds with impiety and ideas about what the gods are and are not, and accuses of teaching young people to question the very nature of our gods and to forget them. Maintaining his string of accusations, he includes arrogance towards the gods, comparing Mt Olympus to mysterious comments as to the existence, believing in gods other than those we hold dear [Zeus, Athena, Apollo, Helios], and creating floating spirits, which are watered down versions evaluated for propagandistic value to program our youth. He draws his speech to a close with questions that ought to be taken into consideration: do we want our children to forget work? Do we want them to disobey the gods? Do we desire disunity in the state? The General believes the answer is no.

With an abrupt “thank you,” Thrasybulus retakes his seat as the esteemed Moderate Democrat John takes the podium.

"Instead of reaffirming the superiority of Athenian democracy, he has proposed that we should all be led by a select few, who he refers to as 'philosopher kings.' Not only is he a dangerous opponent of our glorious democracy, he is a thoroughly impious man. Rest assured men of Athens, he is guilty of impiety. He is no doubt unaware of the definition of impiety by which we now hold him accountable. Impiety is a lack of reverence to the gods and religious practices of the polis. In light of this definition, we hold Socrates to be guilty. Socrates has suggested that our youth be taught only certain instances of the gods, as opposed to the entire story which all of us have been taught. Who does he think he is to teach that we should censor the encounters of the gods? What kind of message are we sending to the youth if we intercept the tales of the gods? Our youth must hear the entire detailed accounts of the gods in order to understand the true nature of our gods, in whom our destinies rely on their immortal favor." In his speech, he emphasizes Socrates’ addition of Love, an emotion, as a deity. "Socrates has no authority to deify an emotion. Absolutely not! I can see his defense to this charge forming in his head right now. We need to convict this man before he spreads any more of his venomous lies."

Radical Democrat, Kainien, resumes the argument against Socrates.

Trickery and deceit within our own ranks are to blame for our defeat. The Radical Democrat blames Socrates for the entire mess of unfortunate recent event. However, after this note, he states that Socrates seeks to replace our democratic government with that his idealized vision of rule by "intellectual" tyrants. Kainien continues with Socrates believing that the Athenian democracy is another form of an "imperfect society" and would dare to compare it to that of Sparta or rule by tyrants. Also, that equality of political opportunity within the citizenry is "flagrantly corrupt" and wasteful of a people's resources. "He has even claimed that the democratic character lacks principle—his philosophical principle no doubt! That we followers of democracy, we Athenians, desire what is 'unnecessary' in his eyes, while failing to meet the requirements of his own lofty pursuits!" The Radical Democrat radically claims that the followers of Socrates are tyrants trained his precious philosophy; they are not chosen by the people they would rule over, but by his cult of intellectuals. Socrates speaks of things like "self-control" and "shame", when he himself is creating a beast that will only end in tyrannical rule in Athens in the place of democracy. He would have us destroy our system of citizenship, render the Assembly impotent, and have power concentrated in a few "wise men" of his choosing, in the name of philosophical justice. Although the speech ends with some of the jury feeling uneasy towards the prosecution's case, all is not lost.

At this point, the Spirit of History deems it necessary that Brandon the Socratic take the podium. Apologizing for lacking oratory talent, he attempts to relate any truth given to back to the jury. He states that it is not for Socrates’ sake, but for Athens. He states that Socrates is only a man whom the gods have blessed Athens with by seating him here and has only ever sought out and followed the will of the gods. He has been placed on trial today for crimes which he has never committed. To carry out the will of the gods is what is just and appropriate for all Greeks to do, including Socrates. He reminds the jury that the Oracle says that no man is wiser than Socrates. Neither he nor the people he questioned knew anything. The only difference was that Socrates was able to admit that he did not know. He declares that anyone who says that what Socrates is doing is unjust is also declaring that the gods are unjust. Socrates never attempted to teach anyone other than himself. Socrates refused payment for knowledge and those who follow do of their own rapport. From this point, he claims that the impiety claim is outrageous. All have seen Socrates at the festivals held in honor of the gods, and Socrates always sacrifices as is appropriate for a mortal to do. Socrates is following the will of the god as we are currently speaking by continuing his life of inquiry, which the god Apollo has laid out before him. Socrates has served in the Athenian military and shown his patriotism and valor on more than one occasion. Socrates has only ever benefited Athens by asking his questions, which are pointed toward the truth of matters and are often difficult to answer of process. Brandon continues a longwinded speech reminding the jury that it is a great burden to go without the luxuries many enjoy.

From this point, an Oligarch, David, approaches the podium to speak on behalf of Socrates' defense.

Oligarch David begins by stating that the fathers are just as accountable as Socrates. He poses the question of who hasn’t enjoyed an afternoon with a boy. With much applause [and even more laughter], he continues. Mentioning the pure slander of Socrates being the cause of the previous horrors, he asks why we should hurt the city and waste our time with holding personal grudges. He points out that the point of reconciliation and the assembly is to not waste time and accomplish great things for Athens. The trial of Socrates is unjust and illegal. He argues that our esteemed Socrates has committed no crime against our youth, our city, or anyone of us. This trial for corrupting the youth is a farce, and proposals already passed by this assembly in fact make this trial illegal. Secondly, he states that it seems that certain accusers and slanderers of Socrates are angered by his practices with their sons. He accuses those who support the trial as hypocrites.

As the Oligarch David retakes his seat, the assembly is adjourned for further oratory in Socrates' defense.

Could everyone please put their email addresses on the blog where they show up, that way people can contact each other.

If you are the Improvished Farmer or the Rich Athlete and you see this could you please contact me about meeting sometime tomorrow (wednesday) . mariedc@uga.edu

thanks

The reading on Greek religion which Kendall recommended today is now available on the CLAS 2110 website, under "Online Reading Assignments"
(http://www.classics.uga.edu/courses/clas2110/online_reading/Burkert%20Polis%20and%20Polytheism.pdf).

Socrates is not good for the future of Athens! He fills your children with the idea of a utopian society that he admits is unrealistic! He is against Athenian tradition. He undermines democracy. His idea of government is to be ruled by philosopher kings, which is just another form of oligarchy! He wants to educate only those who posses “necessary attributes” which translates to only people that will conform to his ways. No matter how educated a ruler, he does not know what is best for everyone. He is not loyal to the gods and his impiety may be the reason for his current situation. Socrates instills these ridiculous beliefs and ways into the minds of our children because they can be molded easily. His intentions are not in favor of all of Athens. He is corrupting the future youth of Athens so that the power of government will be in his hands.
Although Socrates has already corrupted the minds of many, I am limited to speak of only certain instances due to the constraints of the Reconciliation Agreement. Alcibiades, as many of you know, was educated by Socrates and had close relations to him on a personal level as well. After being educated by Socrates, Alcibiades was charged for the destruction of Hermes and called to trial. Coincidently his impieties seem to be very similar to his mentor’s views. Alcibiades escaped from the officers that were to bring him to Athens for the trial and fled to our worst enemy, Sparta! There Alicibiades betrayed us by becoming allies with our opponent. He directed the Spartans with invaluable knowledge to help Sicily defeat our upcoming expedition. Even worse he advised them to invade Attica and promised them your hard worked land after they captured it or we surrendered! No true Athenian would ever turn his back on his city without being brain washed by a man like Socrates! Alcibiades cannot be blamed fully for he was a victim of Socrates’ corruption. Alcibiades learned to undermine Athenian democracy and tradition to the point he gave away his own homeland.
The Socratics want to take your children away from you and educate them in special schools if they posses this special attribute that only the Socratics can judge. The farmers cannot afford to have their children taken away at a young age to be educated in a ridiculous manner; they need their children to help them farm the land. Other workers such as the fishmonger and carpenter don’t have children to be sent off and taught other people’s beliefs; they have children to help them and to carry on a legacy of Athenian tradition! Socrates believes that a shoemaker has one job and that is to make shoes. He believes that a physician should perfect tending to the ill. Socrates wants every person to excel in one job so that there are minimal flaws. In this manner he believes that rulers, such as philosopher kings, should be trained to make political decisions. He wants to get rid of our current form of government and put the power in the hands of the educated. Although the idea of educating certain people to govern may sound like a good idea, I assure you it is not. In the past (450 to be exact) the Spartans have seen our democracy as a threat to their oligarchy. They saw the possibility that the helots would revolt which could lead to slave rebellion as a result. In Socrates’ words random selection would have the shoemaker caring for the ill; however jobs are much different than laws and cannot be defined on black and white terms. No matter how educated the government is, it will not know what is best for the shoemaker. One cannot be educated of other people’s hardships and then go ahead and make decisions that do not concern him. Athenagoras puts it very well in saying “the best guardians of property are the rich, and the best counselors the wise, none can hear and decide so well as the many; and that all these talents, severally and collectively, have their just place in a democracy”. Socrates is corrupting our youth by teaching them about his form of government and interesting them in his schools. We must keep our children in the Young People’s Assemblies and stay weary of Socrates and his ridiculous form of government that he is trying to instill in our children.
The play “Clouds”, Euripides takes Socrates and his views to create a comedy. Although it is fiction, Euripides outlines the possibility of the future. Strepsiades decides to send his son, Pheidippides, to Socrates’ school so that he will learn to trick creditors from paying debts. By the end of the play Pheidippides is educated in Socratic manner and justifies beating his own father and mother. The father admits that he was wrong to send his son to that school. The play ends with Strepsiades burning down the school. Obviously this may be an extreme example but it proves that even your own son could be convinced into anything with the right education. Pheidippides learned it was alright to beat his father just as Alcibiades justifed his betrayal to Athens. We must prevent events such as these from occuring. One taught in this manner is not fit to rule. Although the Socratics assure us that their system will not fail and those educated to be rulers will be just and never think of themselves; we can all see that that is impossible because we are all human.
Socrates is on trial for corrupting our youth with his impious beliefs and ideas of undermining our democracy, culture, traditions and each Athenian citizen. This is a very serious charge that affects you if you are an Athenian citizen, no matter your faction. He is a threat to the future of Athens and must be silenced before it is too late. If we let him continue corrupting our youth then Athens will be an oligarchy lead by Socrates which will limit you to your rights and take away your voice in the assembly.

Katie Putnam

Fellow Athenians!

I fear there has been a terrible misunderstanding. It is not for spite or for recognition that I disagree with the majority of you. My desire is justice and what is best for Athens. Anything that I say or do is centered on those two things. With that in mind, I must also point out that I am not perfect. Perfection is something that is possible for only the gods. Claiming perfection would be blasphemous and I would never dream of dishonoring the gods with such speech. Because of my imperfections I, like you, am able to make mistakes. I will never at all times be wise or have temperance and unfortunately my shortcomings made their appearance through the breaking a law. I would have much rather been reminded of my shortcomings in a less destructive way however, we do not ever get to choose when fate decides to humble us.
I was humbled at our last assembly meeting and I am grateful for the experience because it has shown me the importance of constant study. It has reminded me that I am on a life long journey towards justice, wisdom, temperance, etc; a journey that I must and will take very seriously because it is the path that the gods have chosen for me.
I am, however, not thankful for my unrefined tongue. Never! do I wish to break the laws of the assembly. I may not agree with our current form of government but I recognize that it is the government that has been placed over us for this time. Justice would require that I respect and obey the rule of the government, no matter how much I disagree with its policies. Breaking the law of the assembly was not my intention and I must ask for the forgiveness of the assembly. My purpose was not malicious and I want you all to know that I am deeply sorry for the mistake that I made.
Thank you for acknowledging my guilt. To do else wise would have been unjust. I accept my guilt and I am prepared to accept any punishment that the assembly decides to bestow upon me. I would like to, however, offer up my opinion as to what my sentencing might be. Being that I broke the law, and that same law states very clearly what the punishment should be, I will offer to pay the amount of money stated in the law. I feel that since the assembly is looking for ways to get more money this will prove to be helpful to the assembly and will be satisfactory payment for my error.
Again, I must ask for the forgiveness of the assembly. Please know that I was not ever attempting to undermine the current form of government. I simply made a mistake. I will spend the remainder of my time here in this world refining my tongue and learning the ever-important virtue of temperance. Athens is my home and I want the very same thing as all of you: to see Athens have a bright and prosperous future. I would never purposefully attempt to reach that goal by breaking the law. Please forgive my error. It was very much unintended.

Brandon Owens. Socratic. Paper 3 Feb. 20, 2007

Fellow Athenians,

For your sake and that of Athens, herself, please listen closely to what I would tell you. I will not speak with eloquence, an ability which I lack, but with all of the truth that is available to me. I would seek not to persuade any of you for my own sake, or that of the accused, but for the betterment of Athens. A man whom the gods have blessed Athens with by seating him here and has only ever sought out and followed the will of the god, has been placed on trial today for crimes which he has never committed.
The only suitable place to start anything is at the beginning, so it is there that I will start. Some of you may remember Chaerephon, who is now dead. He, being the impulsive man of action that he was, traveled to Delphi to inquire as to whether there was any on earth wiser than Socrates. The Oracle’s response was “no.” Perplexed, Socrates set out to find the meaning of this revelation by questioning those who were considered by the masses to be smarter and more knowledgeable than the rest. Socrates found that while neither he nor the questioned knew anything of value or worth, he, Socrates, did not pretend to know or act in a manner which suggested that he did. This is the difference between Socrates and other men according to the revelation of the god, Apollo, at whose oracle in Delphi the discovery was made. To carry out the will of the god is what is just and appropriate for all Greeks to do, including Socrates. While Chaerephon is now dead, his brother who bore witness to the events described here can give an account of these things.
His accusers would have you all believe that Socrates has corrupted the youth and taught them great and harmful things. This is not, in fact, true in any sense which it might be perceived. Our beloved Socrates has never once attempted to teach anyone with the exception of himself. Many have even offered to pay the impoverished Socrates for his wisdom, all of which have been declined. Those who follow Socrates around Athens do so of their own accord and for whatever individual reason it is that the god has possessed them to do so. Socrates accepts no students as he claims that he has nothing to teach and only answers to be sought out.
The second charge laid against Socrates is one which I have found quite confusing and nearly unable to fully grasp as it lacks no basis for substantiation. This charge claims that Socrates does not worship the gods of the city. I am uncertain as to what exactly this means. Do the charges imply that Socrates does not believe in the gods at all and is thus to be labeled an atheist by the accusers? Or do the accusers imply that Socrates worships some gods other than those worshiped in Athens and the Hellenic world? Either of these alternatives is, at any rate, false and has no bearing in any thought based in reality. You have all seen Socrates at the festivals held in honor of the gods, and Socrates always sacrifices as is appropriate for a mortal to do. Socrates is following the will of the god as we are currently speaking by continuing his life of inquiry, which the god Apollo has laid out before him.
To say that what Socrates’ lifestyle harms Athens is far from the truth of the matter and is in fact the opposite of it. Socrates has served in the Athenian military and shown his patriotism and valor on more than one occasion. Would any here argue that doing the will of the god is anything other than good for the city? It is the responsibility of all Greeks to carry out the will of the gods as it is laid before them. Socrates has only ever benefited Athens by asking his questions, which are pointed toward the truth of matters and are often difficult to answer of process.
I would warn you against those who argue based on anything but the truth, employing eloquence for eloquence’s sake and who attempt to deceive this jury by appealing to anything other than logic and reason. To appeal to anything else would be a great insult to both you as individuals and to Athens as a whole. Beware of such arguments as they will lead you astray and bring you to a conclusion that is based in something other than the truth of their argument.
Thank you all for your patience and attentiveness. May you all make the best decision that has been made available to you.

My Fellow Athenians: We are here to discuss the trial of a man called Socrates. The charges against him are corrupting the youth and claims that he doesn’t worship the gods of the city. I find these charges, given the accusers, laughable. The radical democrats charge Socrates with corrupting the youth yet how can thy prove this? What gives them evidence that would show that Socrates rather then they is the one that is attempting to corrupt the youth? The radical democrats want to instill a public education for the teaching of “democratic values.” According to Athenian tradition, unless the education is by a Sophist, is has been the responsibility of the father to educate his sons. Will this new form of education not strip the father of his right as such, the father? These children will come home with these notions of what is right or just or “democratic” according to what the teacher (no doubt an “esteemed” radical democrat) feels the need to teach. This will bring exactly the opposite of what we have valued from our youth. We should be focusing on teaching our children obedience to their parents. We would be fools to hope for obedient children under this system of education. Is this not corruption? When your own child comes home to inform you that according to his teacher, you are an unjust man and an unfit citizen, has a youth this insolent not been corrupted? I can find no better word to describe it than corruption.
Yet they choose to charge another man with this. Socrates has not actually claimed to teach anything. He receives no payment. He has not himself proposed the school that you claim will corrupt the youth. This was merely one of his followers. He did not seek out his followers. Upon seeing his wisdom, they deemed this a desirable and worthy attribute and so decided to pursue it themselves. He does not stand before people and present information. He merely formulates discussion. He asks questions. Are we going to try a man for asking questions? The answer is yes, but I pray to the gods that we don’t convict a man for such an offense.
As for not following the gods of the city, this statement makes no sense whatsoever. Socrates lives his life based on the gods. The only reason he continues to gain more wisdom and asks questions is because he feels as though this is the task set before him by the gods. He was deemed (although I will admit this is questionable) to be the wisest man by the oracle at Delphi. When inquiring as to why he was the wisest, he was answered with the reason that unlike other men who thought they knew something, Socrates recognizes that he knows nothing. He thus takes this to mean that he is doing the gods’ will according to him. How may I ask, is this any behavior of a man who does not follow the gods? Socrates shows in his very daily activities that he supports the gods by continuing his role. This is not a way of life from which one can profit monetarily. There is no other explanation for his behavior other than pleasing the gods.
Dear people, I implore you not to convict an innocent man. He has in no manner attempted to corrupt the youth. He has proposed nothing that would indoctrinate his thoughts into the youth. The school proposed is not even his. One cannot claim that he is corrupting through teaching when he has neither established a school nor received payment for teaching services. He is merely a man who asks questions. Where the gods are concerned, he more than most shows his support and dedication. Few of us will devote ourselves to a life of poverty and the pursuit of wisdom. It would appear that this is the gods’ wish for Socrates as according to the oracle at Delphi. How can we punish such a man?

Fellow Athenians, we can all agree that Socrates is a man deep and devoted thought. To properly discuss the trial, the charges brought against Socrates must be declared; they include corrupting the youth and impiety. Although certain charges are exaggerated, if all stand true to the full extent, Socrates should be found guilty and held accountable. Nonetheless, the most recent events that have come to pass should never have occurred. Socrates may teach rather radical ideas, but I do not believe that his true intentions are to corrupt our youth and commit any act of impiety. However, we are not trying Socrates for his intentions; Socrates is on trial for committing said acts.

Each man will interpret Socrates' actions in a different light depending on his predisposed beliefs; I believe that Socrates wishes to better Athens. Socrates’ thoughts and rationales will not better Athens in the same respect the thoughts of the majority of Athenian citizens will create a greater Athens. True betterment of the Athenian society will not be through a ruler so close to perfection we might think he, or if Socrates has his way, she, is Zeus incarnate. Socrates is not trying to corrupt our youth; he is trying to create mortal gods. Perhaps Socrates is too revolutionary. Needless to say, those taught under Socrates’ method of education have exemplified ideals that to our current system can only be classified as corrupt.

In light of my revelation and Socrates’ attempted perfect beings, his mortal gods, the accusation of impiety is clearly accurate. Although Socrates and any of his followers would disagree, Socrates is refining the human mind into the state of god-like infallibility that any Athenian could no longer describe this abomination as human. However, I believe the prosecution is not referring to these acts when they speak of impiety. From my understanding, Socrates is being tried on his restriction of certain stories passed from the gods to writers such as Hesiod. Does Socrates not trust the gods? Yes, his methods are rooted in question upon question. Is there any circumstance where any proper Athenian citizen should question the will of the gods? Simply, the answer is no. Infallibility is one of the gods’ key attributes.

If Socrates is charged guilty, as he should be, I believe that the best course of punishment is far from extreme. Socrates and his teachings can be used as examples as to why our glorious system is superior to any fictitious mode. I believe we should teach Socrates’ thoughts and show the error in his thoughts. Exile is too extreme; yet if we decide that exile truly is the best course, let it not extend throughout the last of his days. Every Athenian, regardless of how led astray, should be allowed to rest within the gaze of our fair and beautiful protector: Athena.

My esteemed fellow Athenians, I come before you today with a heavy heart. It is not with joy, but with a steadfast purpose that I speak. We have often spoken of our hope for the future, and that that hope lies in our sons. I stand here today to tell you that that future is insecure. There are those who would pervert the minds of our sons and have them believe lies about our glorious democracy. Today, we come to try the smooth-tongued viper that would corrupt our children, namely Socrates.

Socrates has a love of leading our young men astray with his golden tongue, from which flow honeyed words, laced with poison. I cannot quietly observe while Socrates seduces our children with his ideas that undermine our very city. Some will say that Socrates is harmless, simply presenting ideas to our youth. I am not such a simpleton, however. It is has been a long time since I thought that ideas are weaker than the sword. Indeed, they are far more insidious, for one knows an enemy when he thrusts a sword into your heart. One thinks a man is his friend while listening to mellifluous words, until the day that he lies on his bed, regretting the betrayal of his fair city. My heart is very sorrowful this day, for the more I struggle to protect our glorious city, the more I discover vipers lurking in the alley ways of our democracy. I fear that my fellow citizens have been blinded by the rhetoric of Socrates, seduced by the same golden tongue that seduced Alcibiades. Have any of you forgotten that bitter betrayal by the man who was Socrates’ lover? I have not; the grief still lies heavy upon my heart.

Many of us have enjoyed the plays of that great comic Aristophanes. In his comedy Clouds, however, there lies a truth that is far more suitable for a tragedy. In the play, Socrates teaches a young man to argue in such a way that right and wrong are disregarded. We all know how the play ends; the young man, Phidippides, beats his father and uses the tools of rhetoric taught to him by Socrates to justify it. You laugh, but I have seen the results of Socrates teachings. Many of our youth have been seduced to believe that we should institute a government of a select few, destroying our democracy and ensuring tyranny and corruption. Would you have our sons destroy our fair city because Socrates has made them believe that our glorious democracy would be better replaced with a few unaccountable and suspect men? Some will argue that if this is the case, then silencing Socrates will accomplish nothing and we must prosecute others. I would respond that the opposite is true. By making an example of Socrates, it will be made clear that such words of sedition are not tolerated. Our conviction of Socrates today will ensure the security and stability of our fair city.

Socrates, who proclaims his humility so proudly, has violated our children with his words that seek to destroy our democracy. Can you not see the Long Walls, as they are even now almost finished? They are beautiful, a testament to our democracy and the security of our city. Yet, I fear that the Long Walls cannot protect against our bitterest enemy; the man who would destroy our democracy with his tongue, rather than his hands.

While I recognize the imperative need for Socrates to be silenced, I cannot wish death upon him. This would be far too excessive and can only cause disharmony. Furthermore, his followers would happily make a martyr out of the man, ensuring Socrates a place in our history he does not deserve. Rather, let us silence that golden tongue and exile Socrates so that our children will retain the wisdom of the gods and will continue to protect the freedom of our beautiful Athens, the city of the grey-eyed goddess.

What can I say to you today, my fellow Athenians? Should I speak once more of the dream I have had of my son entering the fair Assembly, or of the harbour full once more of ships carrying their goods from all parts of the sea? Should I tell of the dream I have had of the fair Athens, graced with freedom and secure in liberty, powerful once more and secure from tyranny?

I am reminded of the words of the great Pericles, when he spoke of the men who willingly died to save Athens, “Thus choosing to die resisting, rather than to live submitting, they fled only from dishonour, but met danger face to face…” Today, we must choose to meet the danger to our city face to face and silence Socrates.

John Nelson
Moderate Democrat
February 19, 2007

Fellow Athenians, the case before us today is that of Socrates. Here is a man who for the past two decades has been leading our youth astray. Instead of reaffirming the superiority of Athenian democracy, he has proposed that we should all be led by a select few, who he refers to as “philosopher kings” (Republic 473d). Not only is he a dangerous opponent of our glorious democracy, he is a thoroughly impious man.
Now, for purposes of clarity and accuracy, I think it best if I define what I mean by the term ‘impious’, because the last thing I want to do is to convict a man of an offense which he did not commit. Rest assured men of Athens, he is guilty of impiety. I can see it now in my esteemed opponent’s eyes that he is amused that the charges of impiety have been brought against him today. He is no doubt unaware of the definition of impiety by which we now hold him accountable. He would certainly say that he believes in the gods, and therefore is surely a pious man. In fact, I have heard from his own lips that he is ordained to teach his philosophy in Athens by the Oracle at Delphi, which he heard indirectly from his friend Chaerephon. Furthermore, Socrates has said that the Oracle says that he is the wisest man on Earth (Apology). I am not here to refute this claim since I am not a priest or a soothsayer, but I bring it up so as to show his ‘evidence’ against the charges currently brought against him. His defense may work for an inaccurate definition of impiety, but not for the definition the prosecution proposes. At this time I wish to clearly explain what the prosecution means by ‘impiety’. Impiety is a lack of reverence to the gods and religious practices of the polis. In light of this definition, we hold Socrates to be guilty.
Socrates has suggested that our youth be taught only certain instances of the gods, as opposed to the entire story which all of us have been taught (Republic 386a). Who does he think he is to teach that we should censor the encounters of the gods? What kind of message are we sending to the youth if we intercept the tales of the gods? Our youth must hear the entire detailed accounts of the gods in order to understand the true nature of our gods, in whom our destinies rely on their immortal favor.
In another instance we have all heard him introduce a new deity, Love (Symposium). Socrates has no authority to deify an emotion. Are we to now pray to Love and hold festivals in his honor because Socrates says he’s among the immortals? Absolutely not! He has added this new one to our sacred Pantheon, and he has not yet suffered any repercussions for his blasphemy. I can see his defense to this charge forming in his head right now. He would say it was not his idea to deify Love, but rather Diotima’s. This may be the case, but her blasphemy which she whispered to him in private he is now teaching in the home of Athenians. We need to convict this man before he spreads any more of his venomous lies.
Surely we can agree that he is guilty of impiety, and this calls for conviction. Now as far as sentencing is concerned, I feel that his execution is too drastic a measure and will probably polarize our polis. We have no intention to make him a martyr, for his followers will have an inflated figurehead to rally around as they spread his blasphemous teachings. Instead the prosecution proposes to exile him to Thebes for twenty years. We need to get him out of our celebrated polis, where we value piety above all else.

Fellow Athenians,

We all wish to know what to do with Socrates. Is he a treat to our society? Often enough I have heard his followers extol the virtues of education and justice and how the good of the many must outweigh the good of the few. They are, on their own, wondrous virtues that all men should hold to, but upon closer inspection, there are flaws in his presentation of these virtues.

Let us examine Socrates’ idea of an ideal society: a just society where elite men (and women) rule the masses because they are intellectually superior. He would classify men according to a class structure and put those who work to feed and provide for those who rule on the lowest rung, and worse, he would tell his citizens that was the way things should be. The man who toils in the field or crafts goods would have to blindly follow one of his “philosopher kings” without ever having a chance to refute. Are we not all Athenians? Are we not all equal as citizens? According to the law, a man’s patriotism is what is to be valued in a citizen. His very idea of a class structure stands in opposition of that law.

Also, he stands in opposition of other laws we have passed, such as that “the Assembly makes all decisions and laws”. If all men may sit in Assembly, then surely all men should have a say in the making of the decisions and laws of our city. Not so, according to Socrates. He would tell us that only a few men could rule the many. He would tell us that thinkers know what is best for potters and fishers and soldiers. Don’t potters know what is best for potters? His followers tell me this is the problem with our society; that potters are only thinking of potters and not of our city. Yet, if one thinks only of the many, often the few suffer. Our system of government gives the few the right to speak out and hopefully prevent themselves from suffering and allows the many to work with the few to better our society.

However, the question of whether or not Socrates has “corrupted our youth” has not been addressed. I feel that he has. In our last Assembly meeting, one of his followers defied the law before our very eyes, a law this follower supported the ratification of. This man was clearly well educated. This man stood before us and spoke of justice and the superiority of the educated man, and yet he defied a law he claimed he felt was just. If, for the sake of argument, his sense of justice, which no one can define, was not in error, then it must have been his education. He received his education from Socrates. It appears to me that Socrates taught this man to defy the laws of our Assembly.

I cannot try a man for not defining justice. I cannot hold a man in court for being a confounding man or for being disagreeable. However, I can say with all sureness that this man is encouraging our youth to disobey our laws for it has happened even in our Assembly. A man may question the validity of laws as he wishes, and our system of government allows us to change laws we find to be unjust. Let him question the law, but if we let him defy the law we encourage corruption. I think it is a given fact that corruption stands in direct opposition of justice. A man who defies justice must be punished.

Democrats and intrested indeterminates just a reminder that all the democrats will be meeting this morning in the library at 9:00 at Tween the Pages.

Dear fellow Athenians, Sorry about the delay on the charges against Socrates. we are doing the traditional charges.

(Paper #3) Corrupting the Youth of Athens is a very serious charge, one not to be taken lightly by anyone. While I am sure that the Radical Democrats have many reasons why Socrates should be convicted I would like to ask you what exactly corrupting the youth entails. Does it simply mean that a person has taught children values that do not uphold what we consider to be Athenian? If this is the case then I do not see how we can convict anyone with this charge since we have not yet once been able to decide what is in the best interest of Athens unanimously. We all think that we know what is in the best interest of Athens but who decides which one of us is correct.

You will probably say that the majority of citizens would always be correct, but do you not also say that people can be swayed by “golden-tongued orators.” Might these orators not have the best intentions for Athens and her people. Since people are easily swayed by words then how can the majority be considered a reliable source for what is best for Athens? With these orators passionately speaking and persuading the masses to their idea of Athens we are not letting them think for themselves and come to their own conclusions, their vote can be “bought” with eloquent, fiery words spoken by a master of persuasion. Is this not what you have feared most above all, that democracy has a flaw, and that each person does not in fact have a vote because they are being forced and threatened into voting a certain way.

I think that you all would like to see Socrates brought to justice. That is the “right” thing to do. But is not “right” simply what is in the best interest of the majority. Therefore because it is the right thing to do is not sufficient cause to convict Socrates. Right and wrong are terms that bend and change each day according to the masses. They are not reliable and cannot be used when a man's life might be at stake. We must first determine what right and wrong are before we can speak of justice and punishment. How are we to make sure that everyone is given the same definition of right and wrong when they do not all have the same jurors, or are tried on the same day. People are imperfect and they can be bought and persuaded to one view or another. I therefore feel that in order to convict Socrates of corrupting the youth, we must first decide what really is the best for Athens, and what is right and wrong. Only then can we truly know whether he is corrupting our youth or simply a thorn in our esteemed Radical Democrats side.

Game Advisory from the Gamemaster

As the Radical Democrats have not posted the full set of charges against Socrates, I am restricting the charges against him to two:

1. Socrates corrupts the youth of the city.

2. Socrates does not worship the gods of the city.

His accusers should attack him on these grounds; his defenders should be prepared to defend him on these grounds. All other issues spring from these two charges. (And beware violating the Reconciliation Agreement.)

And be sure to read my earlier posting about tomorrow's session.

Athenian Assembly,

I would that the entirety of the Athenian polis was made of such stuff as our dearest philosopher Socrates. Truly, then, we would have no need for an Assembly. His argument for the implementation of a ruling class of self-sacrificial, philosophical disembogues -- created for justice -- is a highly commendable one. Where Socrates fails (even downright blunders, taking into account his genius), is in his inability to allow for something short of an idealized, even fictitious, citizen-body. As one of his followers exemplified in our prior assemblage, the mind -- even a Socratic mind -- is capable of bungled statements and simple mistakes. These “philosopher kings or “Guardians” of the people would have to possess many qualities of the gods which man simply cannot expect to obtain.
Socrates is a rare creature of thought. Is it safe to say that he would make a trustworthy and disciplined “philosopher king?” The mere fact that I would ask such a question is telling of his overwhelming control with clever oration – and in this manner, he is certainly a threat.
Although I do not deride and in fact love Socrates the man, I am disturbed by the potential effects that could be imposed upon the next generation of Athenian citizens. Such lofty ideals composed of in his arguments against democracy are fit only for capricious discussion among educated men of grounded reasoning skills, and are in fact encouraged in our polis so long as they are understood as creations of whim; obsolete in practice.
Given the tender nature of the present situation here in Athens, and although he is a brave and loyal fighter as I have known, I must insist that Socrates be found guilty in this prosecution. I am not a man of politics, yet as an athlete and soldier I have been disciplined to perceive threatening circumstances, and act upon them accordingly. Yes, Socrates should be found guilty, but not for “undermining Athenian values” as was originally charged, but for the unfortunate occasion of being a genius among petty knaves like our populous. His greatness only makes us feel bad, and his solutions range from the far-fetched, such as the decidedly hypocritical application of censorship, to the downright wrong – women rulers? Women do have certain “talents” – I can and do often attest to this sentiment, as many of you know – but they certainly do not apply to politics, and I would prefer to keep these two subject pains in separate facilities.
There is in Socrates as much to be admired as condemned. He speaks from some “arena” of truth, but even a man seeking justice in all things cannot hope to achieve in actual life that which resides in his fantasy. Already he has many followers which believe to the contrary, and would be content in inert reflection where they should be training their bodies and minds to have strength for external conflict (and the gods know we have our fair share of adversity already). Whatever the outcome, I will intercede on behalf of Socrates should his life be at stake. Even the gravest error of a contagious tongue should be remedied in far cleverer ways than execution.

Thanks be to the gods,
Rich Athlete

(Paper #3)

To my fellow jurors in this Athenian court!

We stand at a precipice for our polis. Among us, there are those of us who have used war and ruin and scandal to undermine our most valued traditions, our Athenian democracy. They have conspired with our enemies, leading them to victory over us. I say that it was not democracy that failed us, not our spirit that lost the war against Sparta, but trickery and deceit within our own ranks that cost us, and can continue to inflict us with misery and defeat. And who among these traitors and cowards so blatantly stands before us, continuing to rot our state from within with proclaiming himself the singular pillar of virtue and righteousness, the sole visionary of Athens' future? None other than Socrates himself!

It is no secret to anyone that the list of crimes and offenses committed by Socrates is long and extensive, and yet, he is still tolerated. We have tolerated him despite his insistence in conspiring with Sparta, despite his love affair with that criminal and traitor Alcibiades! But it is not concerning those heinous acts that I stand before you today—no, there will be plenty of discussion concerning the cult of traitors later. Instead, I address Socrates' words themselves! This man seeks to replace our democratic government with that his idealized vision of rule by "intellectual" tyrants, and his followers have had the audacity to propose just that at this democratic Assembly!

In examining the texts of Socrates' dialogues, his attentions become abundantly clear: he believes that the Athenian democracy is another form of an "imperfect society" and would dare to compare it to that of Sparta or rule by tyrants! That equality of political opportunity within the citizenry, something that has defined Athenian life for centuries, is "flagrantly corrupt" and wasteful of a people's resources, even as his followers participate in democracy at this Assembly! He has even claimed that the democratic character, while "versatile", lacks principle—his philosophical principle no doubt! That we followers of democracy, we Athenians, desire what is "unnecessary" in his eyes, while failing to meet the requirements of his own lofty pursuits!

But even more disturbing than his opposition to democracy is what he would have us replace it with, and what his followers have attempted to accomplish in this Assembly! For a man to have complaints about certain aspects of government is not abnormal, but that does not even begin to describe Socrates! He and his followers would have us be ruled, not by ourselves, but by tyrants! Tyrants, trained in Socrates' precious philosophy, not chosen by the people they would rule over, but by his cult of intellectuals. Nor would these "philosopher kings", as he has called them, be answerable to their actions—no, the Socratic belief of infallibility tells him and his allies that such a system of responsibility and accountability is, again, "unnecessary" and "lacking in principle". And in selecting this tyrant, he would destroy the traditions of what it means to be an Athenian. Would any of you consent to being ruled over by a woman, and not even a woman you would see fit to rule you, but one chosen by men with their heads in the clouds? I for one would not! Socrates speaks of things like "self-control" and "shame", when he himself is creating a beast that will only end in tyrannical rule in Athens in the place of democracy! He would have us destroy our system of citizenship, render the Assembly impotent, and have power concentrated in a few "wise men" of his choosing, in the name of philosophical justice!

I don't need to tell you, good jurors of the Assembly, of what this means. The fact that any of us are standing here, and have any say in our government, is a testament to our democracy. You must put aside whatever your personal feelings are for this man, and do was is right for Athens! Convict Socrates for his crimes—his opposition to the Gods, his corrupting of our youth, but above all, for his and his followers intent to destroy our way of life!

- Representative of the Radical Democrats

Greetings everyone,

In order to help you along with refining your speeches, Dr. Nancy Felson and I have put some books and pamphlets on reserve in the Alexander Room (Park Hall 222) for you guys to look over. There are some really helpful things there that you might want to consider leafing through. If you go into the room, the books are going to be on the left side of the left wall, towards the bottom. There are countless other resources in there for you to use, since it is the classics reading room, after all.

Just a couple of things, though. You can't take any of the books out of the room and the hours for the reading room are generally 8-5, although there is usually some unlucky grad student translating in there after hours. Also, if you get there at 5, the receptionist will let you stay as long as you agree to lock the door after you leave.

Everyone needs a FULL statement of the charges against Socrates ASAP. Radical Democrats, as you brought the charges against Socrates, you have the primary responsibility here. But any one who wrote down the full list of charges last Thursday, feel free to post the charges to the blog.

I can only grieve that the Socratic members of our society care so little for the rule of law and the security of our democracy that they consider it unnecessary to pass laws foundational to our fair city’s way of life. Contrary to the opinion of the untutored “intellectual elites” of our society, it is necessary for us to engrave in stone the foundational ideals of our society following the recent turmoil our glorious city faced. As arduous a task as it would seem to some, I consider it an honor to reestablish our ideals and mode of government. Obviously, some members of our august Assembly find such work beneath them. I am sure an inconclusive argument of the meaning of justice would please them more, but my duty is to our city and the glorious gods, not pandering to those who would negatively influence the minds of our children.

Gamemaster's Game Advisory for Tuesday, February 20

We will finish the penalty phase for the trial of Socratic Katie for violating the Reconciliation Agreement. The prosecutor (Radical democrat Christine) will propose a penalty. The assembly decreed a penalty, a fine of 200 drachma or labor on the Long Walls; if the prosecutor suggests a different penalty, the prosecutor should explain why that penalty is in order. The convicted, Socratic Katie, will respond, and may argue against the penalty, accept the penalty, or propose another penalty. Only the prosecutor and the convicted will speak; there will be no questions or discussion. After the two speeches, the jurors will vote on the penalty.

As you consider your vote in the penalty phase, remember that you may need Socratic Katie's vote in the remainder of the game.

We will then proceed to the trial of Socrates. Archon (and Radical democrat) Christine will preside over the trial; she will not have a vote, nor will the accuser (Radical democrat Thrasybulus) nor will the principal defender of Socrates (we will identify that person at the beginning of the trial). The accuser will speak first and may have up to three supporting prosecutors; then the principal defender of Socrates will speak, and the principal defender may have up to three supporting defenders. (In a departure from Athenian practice, supporting prosecutors and defenders will retain their votes as jurors-- otherwise, the jury pool will be too small.) Again, there will be no questions or discussion.

After the speeches, we will move to a vote on guilt or innocence, if time allows; and if time allows, we will move on to the penalty phase. In that phase, the accuser will propose a penalty; the principal defender will respond. Again, no questions or discussion; a vote on a penalty will follow the speeches.

Those of you who are neither Radical democrats nor Socratics should consider whether you want to lend your aid to the prosecution or defense of Socrates. If you want to aid the prosecution, offer your services to Radical democrats Thrasybulus/Melissa, Christine, and Kainien; if you want to aid the defense, contact Socratics Brandon and Katie.

And please consult the "Metroon"
(http://www.classics.uga.edu/courses/clas2110/game_info/Metroon.pdf ); some laws still don't bear the names of their proposers. You don't get credit for a law if your name isn't on it.

I believe that there were three more charges against Socrates, besides the corrupting of the youth charge. I think one dealt with the old gods, and two dealt with Socrates undermining the laws of Athens. However, it would be great if the Herald could specify the exact wording, because I'm uncertain what it is exactly.

I recall that the charges against Socrates himself were written more explicitly then they are in the minutes. Could they be posted, either by the Herald or by Dr. Dix, so that we may know what to write our papers on? Thanks.

Assembly Minutes 2/15/07

Prior to the formal beginning of the Assembly, insults could be heard, including one cry of "Socratic Losers!" over the Agora.

After an opening decleration by the President and the opening prayer by the Herald (Kainien Morel), a pig was sacrificed and distributed among the assembly.

The first proposal came from the a representatives of the Oligarchs (David), who asked that he be allowed to purchase a trireme and lead a diplomatic mission to Thebes and a mutual-defense treaty.

The first question came from the nature of the treaty, which was still to be discussed.

(The Gamemaster then reminded the Assembly that Thebes is accessible from Athens by land, not only by seas.)

There was debate over how the leader of such a mission would be decided—by lot or by election?

The Oligarch repeated that he felt he was more qualified than others for this position, thanks to his family history, rather than, "a fishmonger or a pottery maker", and not to allow partisan politics to stand in the measure's way.

Suspicious, the Impoverished Farmer than questioned whether an overseer might potentially interfere with any acts of corruption he might engage in.

(The Gamemaster explained that, since the representative would have to return to Athens ultimately, he could be held accountable in court after the mission. Furthermore, Athens does not have a formal foreign service.)

A request by a Moderate Democrat to allow for a brief caucus was denied by the President, while an Oligarch accused the democrat of non-patriotic behavior.

The President attempted to raise a vote for the proposal, but was barred by the Impoverished Farmer, who questioned the wisdom of allowing him to be sent out without any sort of administration.

A democrat argued the necessity to keep relations with Thebes as they had been in the past, rather than an alliance.

Finally, the President was able to call a vote on the proposal. It passed, nine in favor, three against, and two abstaining.

The second proposal came from representative of the Socratics (Brandon), who proposed only the deserving will receive an education in ruling and a council of those who already understand the values of justice will choose those who deserve an education.

The fishmonger questioned the nature of this word 'justice', and the Socratic elaborately in great length about the nature of justice, virtue, temperance, etc.

The fishmonger did question these definitions further, and the Socratic stated that, in effect, not all men were fit to have a say in government.

The impoverished farmer than questioned why he (and others) should allow the Socratics to "enslave them", disenfranchising them, since many have never had an opportunity to meet Socrates in person or study his teachings.

The middling farmer asked that, since many have has have the opportunity to study Socratic thought, whether or not this would apply immediately or to future generations.

The Socratic replied that it would only apply to the "ruling classes".

The Impoverished farmer than demanded why there would be the formation of the "ruling classes" in Athens, accusing that the Socratic wished to turn Athens into Sparta.

The Middling Farmer asked whether or not the Socratics understood whether or not what was best for the farmers, or any other segment of the population.

The fishmonger once again questioned the validity of an idea of creating a new ruling classes to be educated.

The Impoverished Farmer questioned Socratic wisdom, whether a group of thinking individuals could really understand exactly what was necessary to these communities. Another Socratic argued

A charge came from the democrats that the Socrates were trying to overthrow the democratic tradition, and replace it rule by select few.

A loud debate followed between the oligarchs and the democrats over the validity of democracy as a government, in light of Athens' recent military defeats and of past military history.

The question was asked what would happen to students who were educated, and the Socratic replied that they were would be installed into appropriate ruling positions. The first step to reforming the government, the Socratic explained, was to create a new system of educations. Ruling was not a luxury, but another profession, one that needed the refinement and experience of a long-standing ruling class.

The Impoverished Farmer stated that since no man could be perfect, the notion was flawed.

The oligarchs responded with the classic response of, "Aren't upset that nothing at all has been accomplished (in this Assembly)?", a very common defense repeatedly used in the past by both Socratics and oligarchs. The Oligarchs also questioned how that this was different from the democratic education passed at an earlier time.

Abruptly, General Thrasyboulos (Melissa) argued that the Socratics had already demonstrated their intention to 'brainwash' the population, and that Socrates himself should be brought to trial for corrupting the Youth. The General is also an Archon.

The Charge was accepted by the Second Archon, a radical democrat, and will be presiding over the trial. This is a groundbreaking proposal!

After a brief recess, the General and leader of the Radical Democrats posted the formal charges against Socrates. The Middling Farmer stood near the podium, making strange gestures at the Oligarchs.

In a break from tradition, both Socratics took the podium, and continued speaking on the proposed amendments—one repeated that power was not a luxury, and that those selected would have to take on enormous responsibilities. The Socratics stated this was the only option in order to form a just government.

The Socratics were questioned as to whether a woman might become such a leader, causing a minor upheaval in the Assembly.

The Impoverished farmer demanded if the Socratics would take his own daughter from him if she was seen as a fit ruler, and the Socratics admitted they would in that unlikely case, much to the irritation of the farmer.

The Fishmonger demanded whether or not they would teach the children the stories of the Gods.

The Impoverished Farmer took the podium, after the Socratics. He stated that he had rowed on the trireme during the war, and that if he were robbed of his vote in the Assembly, he would not be a true Athenian, nor would anyone else. This is how his father ruled, how his grandfather ruled, and how their fathers had ruled, he declared!

The Socratic responded poignantly, speaking of the history of Athens' failures, but violated the Reconciliation Law in his dialogue!

The Second Archon has charged a Socratic with breech of law, and the charge was accepted by General Trasyboulous. The General took the seat as prosecutor, the remaining members of the assembly (except the prosecutor and the charged) as jury, and trial of the Socratic has begun!

The Prosecutor opened with a restatement of the charges.

An oligarch (David) asked if the Reconciliation Law, which he had helped spearheaded, was to be taken in this context. The Archon responded that the law applied to all cases, regardless of context. The Socratic charged verbally accepted the charge and admitted to committing the crime, but argued that he had not intended it in malice.

The General called for a vote over the guilt of the charged Socratic. The result was the Socratic was found guilty, five to three.

Running short on time, the Assembly was called to a close.

I have posted to the CLAS 2110 webpage, under "Game Information," the official repository of all the Assembly's enactments, called the "Metroon"
(http://www.classics.uga.edu/courses/clas2110/game_info/Metroon.pdf).

You should all take a look at this; you will see that some laws do not have the names of their proposers listed. If you proposed a law which passed but the Metroon does not give you credit, tell the Gamemaster, in the interest of both "historical" accuracy and game "points."

Today the assembly proved once again why only those who are intellectually qualified should be allowed to rule. Allowing the masses to rule wastes time as the "President" (I use that term very lightly lest you be mistaken and think that he deserved that role) proved by bogging down the system with 2 more "reaffirmation" proposals...
-Government positions are to be chosen by lot (Passed 7-5-2)
-Generals to be elected by the assembly (Passed 11-2-1)
We already did both of those things! So congratulations Democrats on accomplishing so much for the good of Athens!
The "esteemed" Democrat follow in the very productive footsteps of his presidential ally by presenting yet another reaffirmation proposal...
-Assembly makes all the decisions and laws (Passed 8-2-4)
If you are not convinced yet that the masses are not equipped to rule, you should be!
Finally Finally Finally Someone made a proposal that was something different then what we already do...
-Create a Leadership lottery where potential leaders are voted into a select group and then out of those men government positions are filed by lot (Failed 6-6-2)

The discussion then changed to the topic of education.
Although the proposal that was suggested by the radical democrats would only serve to pass along the ineffectuality of the assembly to the next generation, I must acknowledge that they did come up with an idea that was not the status quo. I commend you Radical Democrats. (Please do not over look the sarcasm in that statement)
-Create a a young person assembly with teachers paid through government funds (Passed 6-5-2)
A very wise member of the Socratic faction attempted to reason with the assembly as to why the education of everyone is superfluous, however he found it very hard to reason with those who are not on the same level as him intellectually. So unfortunately for the polis, his attempts to create a just and more prosperous Athens fell on deaf ears.
The mid-land farmer had a very original and potentially practical proposal...
-Create a employment bazaar, with trade masters, once a year where children will come and be able to explore different trades
At this point time ran out and we were unable to vote on the remaining proposals.

Overall, aside from the pig sacrifice there was not a bright point in the entire proceedings. Logic and critical thinking do not appear to be the strong points of the masses.