The four dialogues Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, and Phaedo were all written by Plato to provide insight into the trial and death of the famous philosopher Socrates. Each work focuses on a different aspect of Socrates' personal teachings and ideals, ranging from questions about piety to Socrates' final thoughts on the afterlife and death itself. Throughout the dialogues, every statement Socrates makes revolves around practicality and logic. This reasoning often results in vague or unresolved questions, as is typical of the Socratic method. Socrates' intention was not to provide answers, but to cause his listeners to rethink previous beliefs and see the error of them. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay The dialogues focus primarily on the trial of Socrates, as described in Apology. Socrates chooses to respond to the old and new accusations against him in order to fully prove his innocence. He is accused of corrupting the youth of Athens and of not having paid homage to the city's gods. Socrates begins to refute these claims by stating, “I know that I have no wisdom. » He could not teach others because he is not wise; Socrates is simply considered wise because he is aware of his own personal limitations, while others are "considered wise by many and wiser by themselves." However, they are simply fooled by what they think is true. Socrates' specific type of questioning "made him and many others an enemy", which in turn is one of the main reasons why he is brought to justice because he ridiculed many members prominent in society. Socrates does not aim to ridicule others. It is simply the result of his efforts to push the citizens of Athens to not just accept as fact whatever they believe, but to be able to defend and prove their beliefs. Socrates, instead of responding to the accusations of "corruption of youth", turns to the question returning to his accusers. Meletus, his main accuser, asserts that “every Athenian improves and elevates [the youth]; all except [Socrates].” Logically, this statement cannot be true, because one person cannot be behind all the wrongdoing. Socrates, once again, compares the situation to another less complicated subject, that of horses. By using a different topic, he distracts the accusers and makes them think about the accusations in a more practical application, rather than through the vague and lofty idea of ​​"corrupting the youth." In doing so, he nullifies this part of the charges. Another element of the accusations against Socrates concerns the allegation that he did not pay proper homage to the gods of the city of Athens. The initial accusation is that Socrates is a complete atheist. Socrates quickly refutes this notion by asking the question: “Can a man believe in divine agents and not in spirits or demigods?” He states that one cannot believe in demigods without first believing in the gods who gave birth to those demigods for the simple reason that one cannot exist without the other. Throughout the trial, Socrates relies on logical solutions to seemingly noble questions; this method infuriates his accusers but is an effective tool for refuting both new and old accusations. At this point, a reader might reasonably assume that Socrates would be cleared of the charges and released.