During the years of my high school and university education, I read “The Apology of Socrates” and “Plato's Republic” four times. Every time I read these two texts, I come away from this experience with something new. There is so much information in these two books that you never catch all the little details and hidden meanings. I imagine that even if I had read these books hundreds of times, I still wouldn't have understood everything I meant. I think the reason for this is because Socrates' personality is so complex and you never understand exactly what he is trying to say. Nothing about Socrates is concrete, and this is because he never says what is on his mind. Instead he just asks questions, and maybe hints at what he's thinking about, but never says it himself. This always leaves me in a really confused state, trying to guess whether his suggestions are genuine or if they are part of some kind of reverse psychology, or even if he simply wants us to think they are part of reverse psychology. Trying to decipher Socrates' language is a difficult task for most. As I said before, Socrates' personality is extremely complex, more than our brains can imagine. The most important trait he possesses would probably be his ability to handle a conversation to his liking. I never see Socrates in a speechless state where we don't get to see Socrates in action in "The Apology of Socrates", but we see him in "Plato's Republic". After reading these two books a few times I have come to the conclusion that Socrates is innocent. People usually think that Socrates is innocent because they believe that his accusations are not necessarily bad. While I believe they are not evil, I based my conclusion about Socrates' innocence only on his actions in “The Republic of