More handpicked essays just for you.
Ancient Greek philosophy and its influence on western civilization
Greek philosophy critical examination
Greek philosophy critical examination
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Socrates states to the jurors in his trail, “No evil can happen to a good man” (48). Socrates is examining the moral center of the man. Evil can occur to an individual from the outside. Socrates a good, even innocent, man was sentenced to death. Other characters in history and even today are identified as good, but they still have evil occur to them. Socrates is not talking about an outside evil or harm occurring to a good person. He is examining the soul and what is morally evil and morally good. First the evil Socrates is talking about is not the evil of some possessing spirit. This is clear. The evil Socrates is talking about is moral evil. Breaking of one’s moral standards results in a moral evil that can bring harm to a good man. Socrates was a good man, but the morally corrupt jury and individuals prosecuting him brought about evil on Socrates in the form of death. The crowd came to …show more content…
The first is a common ignorance. This is simply ignorance that humans are born into or that they inherit form their parents. An example is the ignorance about where to place the bread to turn the bread into toast. The individual can sit staring at the bread until he or she is instructed to place the bread in the toaster to make toast. This common or blamable ignorance can be overcome by instruction or by reasoning. Asking questions to arrive at the answer is another way of overcoming this type of ignorance. The second type of ignorance, hubrus, is what the individuals prosecuting Socrates retain. Hubrus is the ignorance that surpasses pride and closely resembles arrogance. The individuals prosecuting Socrates are full of arrogant thinking. The prosecutors refuse to examine themselves or others to arrive at the truth. They are closed minded only concerned with their own welfare. Furthermore, they believe they are above the community since they know all there is to know. This type of thinking is damaging to the mind and to the
Socrates was wise men, who question everything, he was found to be the wise man in Athens by the oracle. Although he was consider of being the wises man alive in those days, Socrates never consider himself wise, therefore he question everything in order to learned more. Socrates lived a poor life, he used to go to the markets and preach in Athens he never harm anyone, or disobey any of the laws in Athens, yet he was found guilty of all charges and sentence to die.
He says justice is what is good for the stronger (Bloom 338c).he considers that when the superior are truly strong then justice is worthy. It is best when the weak follow the laws set by the strong to fulfill their benefits only. Else the laws would be followed to their detriment, and justice would be both good and bad for them (Bloom 339e). So, to the extent that they don't make mistakes, making them weaker, justice is the good for the strong (Bloom 341). On its own, such a sentence could imply that what is beneficial to the stronger is just for and therefore, beneficial to the weaker, and Socrates accordingly asks whether this understanding is accurate.
Socrates’ argument was unique in that he tried to convince the jury he was just an average man and not to be feared, but in actuality demonstrated how clever and tenacious he was. He begins with an anecdote of his visit to the Oracle of Delphi, which told him that there was no man smarter than he. He, being as humble as he is, could not take the Oracle’s answer for granted and went about questioning Athenians he felt surpassed his intelligence. However, in questioning politicians, poets, and artisans, he found that they claimed to know of matters they did not know about. Socrates considered this to be a serious flaw, and, as Bill S. Preston, Esq. put it: that “true wisdom consists in knowing that you know nothing.”
Socrates was indicted to a court of law on the charges of impiety, and the corruption of the youth of Athens. Three different men brought these charges upon Socrates. These men represented those that Socrates examined in his search to find out if the Delphic Mission was true. In that search he found that none of the men that promoted what they believed that they knew was true was in fact completely false. This made those men so angry that they band together and indicted Socrates on the charges of impiety and the corruption of the youth. Socrates then went to court and did what he could to refute the charges that were brought against him.
One could see the final walk-away as a complete failure to a then seemingly meaningless story. Yet, I do not see it this way. Although Euthyphro walked away without a resolution, there was still much to be learned. The seemingly arrogant man that we were introduced to in the beginning, was not the same man in the final pages of the book. We may not have received a complete answer, but we did find something better; the knowledge that we cannot believe that our insights are always correct. And this is what Socrates strove to do: to evoke thought. When put on trial, we see this questioning is not an isolated occurrence as he states, “I believe the god has placed me in the city. I never cease to rouse each and every one of you, to persuade and reproach you all day long and everywhere I find myself in your company” (Apology, 30e). Socrates believed it was his duty to live a life of service in order to make people open their minds. In order for people to grow in wisdom, they needed to realize their ignorance. We need to be challenged in order to grow and it is through experiences, like Euthyphro’s, in which we become more
The society they lived in, both welcomed and shunned their ideals. Socrates was one of those thinkers. It was because of Socrates open-mindedness that he was sentenced to death on two charges brought against him. One, Socrates corrupted the youth and two, Socrates believed in ‘false gods’. Yet, was Socrates guilty or not?
In the retelling of his trial by his associate, Plato, entitled “The Apology”; Socrates claims in his defense that he only wishes to do good for the polis. I believe that Socrates was innocent of the accusations that were made against him, but he possessed contempt for the court and displayed that in his conceitedness and these actions led to his death.
“Are we to say that we are never intentionally to do wrong, or that in one way we ought not to do wrong, or is doing wrong always evil and dishonorable, as I was just now saying, and as has been already acknowledged by us? (Dover p.49)” Socrates’ standard is that he refuses to see justice as an eye for an eye. He believes that logical arguments and persuasion should be the defense of the accused. Socrates believes that since he cannot convince the people who ruled against him that there is no other option then to pay the sentence that he was
In response to the second objection, Socrates does make a large leap from saying that he believes in the spirits to saying that he believes in the gods, however, this does not necessarily mean that his statements are false. In the objection we say that these supernatural spirits could include ghosts or other dead souls, but at the same time the spirits can include other divinities and gods. We are not trying to prove that Socrates believes in a certain god, but that he is not an atheist, or one who denies or disbelieves the existence of god. Furthermore, Socrates is already charged of teaching the youth to believe in divinities and unlike supernatural powers, divinities are deities or gods and goddesses. The fact that Socrates believes in divinities refutes any objection that Socrates may be an atheist.
(37) The problem is that many of the citizens of Athens who wanted Socrates dead, lacked that emotional intelligence and thought highly of themselves. So of course they become defensive when Socrates sheds light on the idea that they may be wrong. As someone who cared most about the improvement of the soul, Socrates would have made a constructive role model to the criminals of Athens, as he would go on saying, “virtue is not given by money, but that from virtue comes money and every other good of man…”(35) Socrates was able to benefit everyone alike as he had human wisdom- something that all the Athenians could relate
Socrates discusses that people should not fear death because we do not know the qualities of death. Even though we do not know what death is, he makes some suggestions for the possibilities after death. He suggests that maybe death is just an endless sleep without dreaming, it is where we can finally come to peace with ourselves. He also suggest that maybe in the afterlife he will be able to meet heroic people in the past, where he can share his experience and question people to see whether they are wise. Even in death Socrates is still going to practice philosophy even if the place is bad. Even if he did not live a just life that he thought he did, he can examine what he did wrong and fix the problems in the after life. I agree with Socrates
Within the duration of this document, I will be discussing the charges laid against Socrates and how he attempted to refute the charges. One of the reasons why Socrates was arrested was because he was being accused of corrupting the minds of the students he taught. I personally feel that it is almost impossible for one person to corrupt the thoughts and feelings of a whole group of people. Improvement comes from the minority and corruption comes from the majority. Socrates is one man (minority).
Whether Socrates is portrayed correctly or not, he certainly was a great man. His contribution to western thought cannot be denied. For even if his teachings were different from what they are known to be at present, his influence on Plato is immense. And so, it is no small matter to describe the tragic passing of such a man as Socrates was and remains for philosophy today. Yet in all the indignation which is expected to arise at the death of Socrates, the panache with which he departs is captured excellently in Plato's “Apology.” Specifically, at the end of the "Apology," Socrates makes a very important statement that has had great impact on philosophy ever since its original proclamation. The Stoics in particular have taken this to be the cornerstone of their ideology. The statement made is that "you must regard one thing at least as certain—that no harm can come to a good man either in his life or after his death,” (Plato 100). The following examination focuses therefore on a brief explanation of the circumstances which lead to this statement being made by Socrates, as well as a closer look at why he thinks this to be the case. It is assumed that this statement is true, and validation for that assumption is to be sought as well.
“Plato, Apologia” is a primary source that is a story written by Plato, it is a written account of Socrates, a Greek philosopher, who was being tried for immorality towards the gods and for “corrupting the youth” (Strayer). In this primary source, Socrates is trying to plead his case so he won 't be charged; unfortunately, Socrates does get charged with the crimes he was convicted of and is sentenced to be put to death. Through his Socrates’ plea, his discusses what he believes is “the good life,” what “wisdom” is, and what “virtue” is.
When Socrates was brought to trial for the corruption of the city’s youth he knew he had done nothing wrong. He had lived his life as it should be lead, and did what he ne...