The four dialogues Euthyphro, Apology, Crito and Phaedo were all written by Plato to provide information on 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 reflections on the afterlife and death itself. Throughout the dialogues, every statement Socrates makes revolves around practicality and logic. This line of reasoning often leads to vague or unresolved questions, as is typical of the Socratic Method. Socrates' intention was not to provide answers, but to make his listeners reconsider previously held beliefs and see the error in them. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay The main focus of the dialogues is the trial of Socrates, as described in the Apology. Socrates chooses to face both the old and new accusations made against him to fully demonstrate his innocence. He is accused of corrupting the youth of Athens and of failing to properly pay 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 personal limitations while others are "considered wise by many and wiser by themselves". However, they are simply deluded by what they think is true. Socrates' specific type of questioning “made himself and many others enemies,” which in turn is one of the main reasons he is put on trial because he fooled many prominent members of society. Socrates does not set out to make others look foolish. It is simply the result of his efforts to push the citizens of Athens not simply to accept everything they believe as fact, but to be able to defend and prove their beliefs. Socrates, instead of addressing the charges of "corrupting the youth", turns the question back on his accusers. Meletus, his main accuser, states that “every Athenian improves and elevates [the young]; all except [Socrates].” Logically, this statement cannot be true, since one person cannot be the root of all wrong actions. Socrates, once again, compares the situation to another less complicated topic, horses. By using a different topic, he shifts the accusers' attention 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 rejects this part of the accusations. Another element of the charges brought against Socrates focuses on the accusation that he did not pay due homage to the gods of the city of Athens. The original accusation is that Socrates is a total atheist. Socrates quickly refutes this notion with a question: "can a man believe in divine agents and not in spirits or celestial beings?" He is stating that someone cannot believe in demigods without first believing in the gods who created such 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 acquitted of the charges and released since he quickly and succinctly proved the charges to be false. Socrates was right in believing that he has made many enemies in Athens because, in the end, he is condemned to die. Even in the face of death he refuses to “abandon the.