Socrates was an incredible man of mystery. He was one of the first philosophers who had strange but knowledgeable beliefs. He was ridiculed for his thoughts and was taken to court by Meletus on account for not believing in the Gods, which the city believed in, and for corrupting the youth. During his court session Socrates continuously referred to the old charges that were sought against him because they related well to the later charges. These new charges were simply a more focused version of the old charges. The old charges blamed Socrates for believing in "things in the sky and things below the earth," about "not believing in the gods" and "making the worse the stronger argument." These charges on the other hand should simply not have been brought against him due to the fact that it made him look like a sophist: that, he definitely was not. In fact, he despised sophistry and could no longer put up with being accused of such nonsense. Yet his thoughts were possibly not the true facts. The real question here is: "Is Socrates guilty of the "accusations that are available against all philosophers," and if so, to what extent is he guilty? Due to Socrates' excellent speeches and explanations one could never find him guilty of any of the accusations he faced. It seemed as if he was skilled in the art of persuasion but then again he was not paid to teach it and therefore was not really a sophist. Socrates mentions that he is concerned with justice, not with words or anything else. This is already putting the jury on notice that Socrates has a few words to say before they come to the ultimate decision of his future. Also he tells the jury that he is not a man who is skilled at the art of speaking within a courtroom for the simply reason that this is his first appearance within one. Socrates hopes he can establish some kind of trust with the jury because he despises Democrati...