More handpicked essays just for you.
Critique of platos ideas and influence
Contributions of Plato in modern society
Plato's philosophical perspective
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The Delphic Oracle acted as a medium in which those who lived in the mortal realm who had need of the guidance of the Gods or wanted to come into contact with the Gods could communicate. The Delphic Oracle could not directly translate the messages of the Gods to mortals, so they would present the will of the Gods into a riddle. If the person was clever enough to correctly understand the meaning of the riddle, then they could predict the outcome and alter their destiny. If, however, the person did not give credence to the riddle, then they ran the risk of suffering at the hands of the gods. This mythological view of the way the world worked gave those who were pressed with difficult decisions the ability to ‘decrypt’ the puzzle the oracle had …show more content…
given, usually resulting in a more well thought out, profound understanding of the consequences of certain actions resulting in a better decision. If the puzzle was not decrypted, it usually meant that the person had not given enough thought to the situation and would thusly result in a more underdeveloped decision that would end in failure. This idea of your destiny being communicated by the gods in the form of a riddle from the medium of the Delphic Oracle outlined the importance of thinking about your decisions and completely understanding what the Gods really meant in order to make an educated decision. An excellent example of deciphering riddles and dreams in order to make decisions is Herodotus’ account of the fate of Croesus’ so, Atys. Croesus dreamt that his son would be killed by an iron spear point. (I 34) This dream urged Croesus to withhold his son from dangerous endeavours, however, assumed that since boars cannot wield iron spears; his son was eligible to embark on a hunting expedition. (I 37-40) What Croesus failed to interpret was that the dream had a more profound meaning that he should not expose his son to dangerous situations, and Atys ended up being slain as another from the hunting expedition accidently missed the boar and impaled him with the iron spear. (I 43-44) When Socrates’ friend, Chaerephon consulted the Delphic Oracle, he asked if there were any wiser than Socrates, and the Oracle said that there was no one wiser. (21a) Socrates was baffled by this as he did not consider himself to be the wisest person in the world. Socrates then proceeded to listen to some of the people he thought to be wiser than him in order to try and see if he could contradict what the Oracle had said. Socrates, after listening to the people he initially considered wiser than himself concluded that they were not actually wiser than him. He soon realized that the reason that he could not find anybody wiser than himself was not because he was exceptionally wise or knew anything special that others did not, but because he understood that he did not actually know anything special and that others pretended that they did. (21b-21e) It soon became Socrates’ philosophical mission to inform people that they were not actually as wise as they perceived themselves to be and in order to actually become more wise, you must realize that you do not actually know anything exceptional that others do not know and that you are no more experienced or profoundly more intelligent than anybody else. Socrates did this, as he claims, “in order to prove the oracle utterly irrefutable.” (22a7) Naturally, people did not appreciate being told that they were not actually as wise as they thought and this confirmed Socrates’ theory on how he was the wisest simply because he could come to terms understanding that he really did not know anything exceptional and others could not. Ultimately, this confirmed what the Oracle had said and ultimately validates the service Socrates claims to provide to the people of Athens in order to serve the god. (23b-23c) Socrates was charged with three accusations: corrupting the young, not acknowledging the gods of the city and introducing new gods.
(24b-8) I believe that Socrates is wholly innocent of the first accusation against him of corrupting the youth. Socrates responds to Meletus’ claims in a similar fashion to how he responds to each of the accusations. Socrates explains how firstly, that Meletus is indifferent towards the young people of Athens and therefore infers that he cannot have any idea on how Socrates positively or negatively affects the youth. (24d-25c) Socrates then says, “No, either I’m not corrupting the young or, if I am corrupting them, it’s unintentionally.” (25e6-26a) This, in my opinion confirms that Socrates is innocence. Socrates then debunks the two following claims in one statement. Socrates paraphrases Meletus’ argument in order to express the hypocrisy in his statement, “Socrates is guilty of not acknowledging gods but of acknowledging gods.” (27a4-27a5) This analysis by Socrates shows that you cannot indict some body of both not acknowledging gods but then acknowledging beings that are either akin to or children of the former. And that in order to not acknowledge the gods; one cannot acknowledge something that is related to the belief of the gods. (27b-27d) In my opinion, both of these statements show Socrates’ innocence as he is not corrupting the youth in a criminal manner as it is either unintentional or not at all, and the last two charges contradict themselves making them inherently both
false. Sources Cited Reeve, C. D. C. "The Apology of Socrates." The Trials of Socrates: Six Classic Texts. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub., 2002. 17a-42a. Print. Herodotus, The Histories, Hammondsworth (England), Penguin, 2003, xlxiii-716 pages. ISBN : 0-140-44908-6. Pages 3-21 (I 6-92)
In spite of this, however, Socrates also uses two very obvious fallacies. Firstly, when addressing Meletus – who was among the individuals who accused him of impiety and corruption of the youth – Socrates misrepresents his argument to support his own position. He asks if Meletus is “not ashamed of [his] eagerness to possess as much wealth, reputation, and honours as possible, while [he does] not care for nor give thought to wisdom or truth, or the best possible state of [his] soul.” However, the two are not mutually exclusive. Caring about wealth, reputation, and honours do not necessarily entail not caring about wisdom and truth. This is quite a clear example of a straw man fallacy. In addition, Socrates uses appeal to emotion to attempt to manipulate the audience into thinking they are the ones doing wrong. He states that the people of Athens “will acquire the reputation and the guilt, in the eyes of those who want to denigrate the city, of having killed Socrates, a wise man. ” It is clear that by saying this, Socrates’ intention was merely to guilt-trip the audience. In contrast, neither of these fallacies are present in Riel’s speech; in fact, upon reading the transcript of said speech, no clear
Socrates then questions him again about whether or not he alleges that he corrupts the youth intentionally or unintentionally. Meletus’ reply was that he does intentionally. Socrates begins to argue with Meletus about his previous statement and, what seems to become, more and more agitated with the fact that Meletus goes back and forth with his argument for the simple facet that he wants Socrates to face the death penalty which is evident in several occasions throughout Plato’s apology. Also, throughout Plato’s version of The Apology, he also makes sure that it is known that his first charges arose from general prejudices that surrounded him over the
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 gods, and corrupting the youth of Athens. For the most part, Socrates speaks in a very plain, conversational manner. He explains that he has no experience with the law courts and that he will instead speak in the manner to which he is accustomed with honesty and directness. Socrates then proceeds to interrogate Meletus, the man primarily responsible for bringing Socrates before the jury. He strongly attacks Meletus for wasting the court¡¦s time on such absurd charges. He then argues that if he corrupted the young he did so unknowingly since Socrates believes that one never deliberately acts wrongly. If Socrates neither did not corrupt the young nor did so unknowingly, then in both cases he should not be brought to trial. The other charge is the charge of impiety. This is when Socrates finds an inconsistency in Meletus¡¦ belief that Socrates is impious. If he didn¡¦t believe in any gods then it would be inconsistent to say that he believed in spiritual things, as gods are a form of a spiritual thing. He continues to argue against the charges, often asking and answering his own questions as if he were speaking in a conversation with one of his friends. He says that once a man has found his passion in life it would be wrong of him to take into account the risk of life or death that such a passion might involve.
In Plato’s Apology, when Socrates is pleading his defence, he makes a good argument against the charges of corrupting the youth of Athens. This is evident when he states that, firstly, Meletus, the man who is trying to get Socrates executed, has never cared about the youth of Athens and has no real knowledge on the subject. Secondly, Socrates states that if he was in some way corrupting the youth, then he was doing it unintentionally or unwillingly, in which case he was brought to court for no reason. Finally, Socrates brings to light the fact that Meletus doesn’t have a single witness to attest to Socrates’ corruption. This is how Socrates proves his argument that he isn’t responsible for corrupting the youth of Athens.
Socrates, in his conviction from the Athenian jury, was both innocent and guilty as charged. In Plato’s Five Dialogues, accounts of events ranging from just prior to Socrates’ entry into the courthouse up until his mouthful of hemlock, both points are represented. Socrates’ in dealing with moral law was not guilty of the crimes he was accused of by Meletus. Socrates was only guilty as charged because his peers had concluded him as such. The laws didn’t find Socrates guilty; Socrates was guilty because his jurors enforced the laws. The law couldn’t enforce itself. Socrates was accused of corrupting Athens’ youth, not believing in the gods of the city and creating his own gods. In the Euthyphro, Socrates defends himself against the blasphemous charges outside the courthouse to a priest Euthyphro. Socrates looks to the priest to tell him what exactly is pious so that he may educate himself as to why he would be perceived as impious. Found in the Apology, another of Plato’s Five Dialogues, Socrates aims to defend his principles to the five hundred and one person jury. Finally, the Crito, an account of Socrates’ final discussion with his good friend Crito, Socrates is offered an opportunity to escape the prison and his death sentence. As is known, Socrates rejected the suggestion. It is in the Euthyphro and the Apology that it can be deduced that Socrates is not guilty as charged, he had done nothing wrong and he properly defended himself. However, in the Crito, it is shown that Socrates is guilty only in the interpretation and enforcement of Athens’ laws through the court system and its jurors. Socrates’ accusations of being blasphemous are also seen as being treasonous.
The main argument in The Apology by famous ancient Greek philosopher Plato is whether, notorious speaker and philosopher Socrates is corrupting the youth by preaching ungodly theories and teaching them unlawful ideas that do harm to individuals and society. In his words Socrates quoted the prosecution’s accusation against him: “Socrates is guilty of corrupting the minds of the young, and of believing in supernatural things of his own invention instead of the gods recognized by the state.” 1 Further Socrates consistently introduces tediously compiled number of examples to provide valid and sound arguments to prove that he is innocent of the charges brought up against him to the court.
Socrates starts by speaking of his first accusers. He speaks of the men that they talked to about his impiety and says that those that they persuaded in that Socrates is impious, that they themselves do not believe in gods (18c2). He tells the court of how long they have been accusing him of impiety. He states that they spoke to others when they were at an impressionable age (18c5). These two reasons alone should have been good enough to refute the first accusers of how they were wrong about him but Socrates went on. He leaves the first accusers alone because since they accused him a long time ago it was not relevant in the current case and began to refute the second accusers. Socrates vindicates his innocence by stating that the many have heard what he has taught in public and that many of those that he taught were present in the court that day.
There are other accusations made against Socrates but I believe that I have covered the major ones. I also believe that as far as the mentioned charges are concerned, I have proved that Socrates is indeed innocent. I personally do not know how he was still found guilty, and I regret that Athens lost such a great man
In his examination of Meletus, Socrates makes three main points: 1) Meletus has accused Socrates of being the only corrupter, while everyone else improves the youth. Socrates then uses an analogy: a horse trainer is to horses as an improver is to the youth. The point is that there is only one improver, not many. 2) If Socrates corrupts the youth, either it is intentional or unintentional. No one would corrupt his neighbor intentionally, because he would harm himself in the process. If the corruption was unintentional, then the court is not the place to resolve the problem. The other possibility is that he does not corrupt them at all. 3) In frustration, Meletus accuses Socrates of being "a complete atheist," at the same time he claims Socrates teaches new gods. Thus, Meletus contradicts himself. Socrates argues that fear of death is foolish, because it is not known if death is a good or an evil, thus there is no reason to fear death.
In Plato’s Apology it seems that overall Socrates did an effective job using the 3 acts of the mind. The three acts of the mind are: Understanding, Judgment, and Reasoning. These acts are stragically used to rebut the charges made against him during trial. The two charges that are formed against Socrates are corrupting the youth and not believing in the gods. The first act of the mind that we will be looking at is, understanding. The question that needs to be asked is what does corruption mean? The accuser believe that Socrates in corrupting the minds of the children by introducing new concepts. Socrates is trying to teach and involve the minds of the youth by getting them to ask question. It is very important that people are always asking questions about why things are. The next question that needs to be address is what does not believe in the gods mean? Socrates believes in God but that is one god that rules the world, not multiple gods who together rule. They are mad that he has “created” his own god.
Therefore, it is less likely the youth have been corrupted by Socrates than by some larger group of people (educators, council members, jurymen etc.). Socrates was also put on trial for being an Atheist. In the argument Socrates has with Meletus, Socrates gets Meletus to admit that Socrates is an Atheist and a theist. Considering that both of these practices are totally incompatible, and Meletus admits to both of theses, maybe Meletus does not really understand what he is accusing Socrates of. I understand that back then not believing in religion was considered a crime but to actually sentence someone to death for being different is totally uncalled for.
In his defense, Socrates claims over and again that he is innocent and is not at all wise, “…for I know that I have no wisdom, small or great.” Throughout the rest of his oration he seems to act the opposite as if he is better than every man, and later he even claims that, “At any rate, the world has decided that Socrates is in some way superior to other men.” This seems to be his greatest mistake, claiming to be greater than even the jury.
that it is because of the gods that things are as they seem to be. "Do you
...nse and cross-examination of Meletus, he hits on contradictions in the affidavit that Meletus wrote. Over and over again Meletus is made out to look stupid and contradictory of himself. In no way would I believe any of Meletus' statements. Unlike Socrates, when questioned, Meletus could not come up with a swaying or even put together answer. Socrates answered the charges clearly; he gave precise arguments reasons why he is not guilty. Meletus could not even back up his charges. Throughout his argument Socrates shows his wisdom and intelligence. Socrates has not hurt anyone in his life; he has only gone on his way questioning people because that is what he does best. It was not his fault that people took an interest in what Socrates was doing; and it was not Socrates' fault that people started following his lead. Therefore, I would plan on voting not guilty.
Philosophy can be defined as the pursuit of wisdom or the love of knowledge. Socrates, as one of the most well-known of the early philosophers, epitomizes the idea of a pursuer of wisdom as he travels about Athens searching for the true meaning of the word. Throughout Plato’s early writings, he and Socrates search for meanings of previously undefined concepts, such as truth, wisdom, and beauty. As Socrates is often used as a mouthpiece for Plato’s ideas about the world, one cannot be sure that they had the same agenda, but it seems as though they would both agree that dialogue was the best way to go about obtaining the definitions they sought. If two people begin on common ground in a conversation, as Socrates often tries to do, they are far more likely to be able to civilly come to a conclusion about a particular topic, or at least further their original concept.