Abstract: Socrates´ thought of justice and obedience to laws is motivated by a will to avoid the destructive effects of Sophistic criticisms and theories of laws. He thus requires-against theories of natural law-an almost absolute obedience to the law, as far as this law respects the legal system of the city.
The trial of Socrates (399 BC) was held to determine the philosopher's guilt of two charges: asebeia (impiety) against the pantheon of Athens, and corruption of the youth of the city-state; the accusers cited two impious acts by Socrates: "failing to acknowledge the gods that the city acknowledges" and "introducing new ...
Instead, Socrates argues that true power comes with the control and order of one's body and soul—the discipline to act justly, live virtuously, and not need anything. This treatment of power becomes all the more significant in light of the events surrounding Socrates's actual trial and death.
Plato's The Apology is an account of the speech Socrates makes at the trial in which he is charged with not recognizing the gods recognized by the state, inventing new deities, and corrupting the youth of Athens.
Socrates debates with himself (505c–509b) Callicles becomes exasperated at the intellectual stalemate, and invites Socrates to carry on by himself, asking and answering his own questions (505d).
And Socrates' position is that rhetoric = flattery = persuasion from a position of not-knowing. There is something else [anti-rhetoric] = education = persuasion from a position of knowing. Rhetoric convinces but leaves people ignorant. [Anti-rhetoric] convinces and leads people to knowledge.
Plato's rejection of rhetoric is built upon two general lines of argument: Democratic weakness: most people are little better than sheep and cannot be trusted to judiciously pierce rhetoric's "oral" spells. We saw an extensive treatment of this argument already in the Republic.