During my high school and college years, I read “The Apologies of Socrates” and “Plato’s Republic” four times. Every time I read these two texts, I come away from the experience with something new. There is so much information in these two books that you never manage to grasp all the little details and hidden meanings. I imagine that even if I read these books hundreds of times, I still wouldn't have understood everything I was meant to do. I think the reason behind this is that Socrates' personality is so complex and we never really understand exactly what he is trying to say. Nothing in Socrates is concrete, and that's because he never says what he thinks. Instead, he just asks questions, and maybe hints at what he's thinking, but never says it himself. This always leaves me in a state of confusion, trying to guess if his allusions are genuine or if they are part of some sort of reverse psychology, or even if he just wants us to think they are part of reverse psychology . Trying to decipher the language of Socrates is a mostly difficult task. As I mentioned earlier, Socrates' personality is extremely complex, more than our brains can imagine. Probably the most important trait he possesses would be his ability to direct a conversation as he pleases. I never see Socrates in a speechless state when we don't really see Socrates in action in "The Apology of Socrates", but we see him in "Plato's Republic". After reading these two books several times, I have come to the conclusion that Socrates is innocent. Usually, people think Socrates is innocent because they think his accusations aren't necessarily bad. Although I also believe that they are not evil, I based my conclusion of Socrates' innocence solely on his actions in "The Republic of