Author here, it was an exercise run by a philosopher and attended by (mostly) philosophers, historians, a smattering of scientists, and a plebeian such as myself.
The idea is to use Socratic arguments and debates as if we were the characters to explore Plato's Republic. And it was really fun! It was historically semi-accurate, well informed, and we had discussions afterwards.
It's about what I uncovered arguing against them as Socrates' prosecutor. As I was arguing against someone who literally taught this at a university, I ended up reading two books in the process and a few papers.
This piece is the product of that. It examines how little we know about the trial and then presents the two hypotheses – the one I argued to convict him and one in his defense.
If you take the time to read the piece, you'll see that every argument is well sourced and covers a fairly comprehensive gamut of thinking on the topic.
The idea is to use Socratic arguments and debates as if we were the characters to explore Plato's Republic. And it was really fun! It was historically semi-accurate, well informed, and we had discussions afterwards.
It's about what I uncovered arguing against them as Socrates' prosecutor. As I was arguing against someone who literally taught this at a university, I ended up reading two books in the process and a few papers.
This piece is the product of that. It examines how little we know about the trial and then presents the two hypotheses – the one I argued to convict him and one in his defense.
If you take the time to read the piece, you'll see that every argument is well sourced and covers a fairly comprehensive gamut of thinking on the topic.