Plato's apology and Its Influence On Socrates Defence

Apology written by Plato depicts the preliminary thoughts of Plato's educator, Socrates. The story behind the written work is that Socrates was defending himself during his trial, Plato's Apology is a record of the speech Socrates makes at the trial in which he is accused of not viewing the Gods recognized by the state. In addition creating new gods, and corrupting the youth of Athens. Socrates discourse is in no way, shape or form an 'expression of remorse' in our modern understanding of the word. Therefore, in the “apology” Socrates endeavors to defend himself and his conduct, definitely not to apologize for it. The message Plato was trying to bestow on us is that death is nothing, meaning no one but the God’s know what happens to us after death so it would be foolish to fear what one does not know. From Plato’s Apology I found, 'When I began to talk with him, I could not help thinking that he was not really wise, although he was thought wise by many, and wiser still by himself; and I went and tried to explain to him that he thought himself wise, but was not really wise; and the consequence was that he hated me, and his enmity was shared by several who were present and heard me. So I left him, saying to myself, as I went away: Well, although I do not suppose that either of us knows anything really beautiful and good, I am better off than he is - for he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows. I neither know nor think that I know. In this latter particular, then, I seem to have slightly the advantage of him' (Plato’s Apology). A Metaphor in this written work is that Plato was being the main form of his own secondary nomination. It was his choice of a highly effective means for concept explication but also at the same time a very complex matter. Creative metaphors that can give new comprehension of our experience and a new meaning to our pasts. The whole concept of being a philosopher is constituted by the imaginative metaphors anyway. Being a philosopher is also represented by evaluative features and being ambiguous towards them. In his time and region society’s evaluation of a philosopher was extremely negative, mostly because it is a question what the government and even what the church made and said.