More handpicked essays just for you.
Explanation of the allegory of the cave
Allegory of the cave symbolism
Explanation of the allegory of the cave
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In Plato's dialogue, the Apology, Socrates is under trial for corrupting the youth. One of the ways he does this, according to one of his accuser, Meletus, is by being an atheist and teaching his students to be atheists as well. Although Meletus agrees that Socrates believes in spiritual activities, he still claims the Socrates denies the existence of all gods, nevertheless. Socrates does not just attempt to refute Meletus, but also proves that Meletus is guilty of jest, dishonesty and logical incoherence. He does this by first inferring that everyone who believes in spiritual activities, like Socrates, believe in Spirits. Then he argues spirits must be gods or children of gods. The first case validates Socrates argument, the second case requires gods to exists, which definitively proves his argument. Socrates makes this argument against Meletus claim that Socrates does not believe in gods, yet believes in spirits. Socrates demonstrates Meletus to be not only inconsistent in his reasoning, but guilty of jest, by demonstrating that Socrates does in fact believe in gods on the basis of premises …show more content…
Meletus accepts. Socrates begins this argument after clarifying with Meletus that he was accusing Socrates of atheism (26c). Socrates' argument is not specifically arguing for the existence of gods, but rather, that he, in fact, believes in gods. In fact, he calls Meletus a “strange fellow” and implies that he does believe in gods by asking rhetorically in 26d, “do I not believe as other men do, that the sun and moon are gods?” Socrates intent, however, is not to simply refute Meletus, but to accuse Meletus of making the accusation “out of insolence, violence, and youthful zeal” (27a). Socrates claims that, although Meletus agrees that Socrates believes in spirits, he does not believe in gods. Socrates claims this is a jest and a riddle since to believe in spirits require one to believe in the gods, which Socrates argues later. Socrates begins his argument with two propositions that he will use as an analogy: flute activities require flute players, and horsemen activities require horses (27b). These are analogies for his first premise: spiritual activities require spirits. Socrates formulates the premise as a question by asking, “does any man believe in spiritual activities who does not believe in spirits?” Meletus agrees that anyone who believes in spiritual activities must believe in spirits, and also acknowledges the Socrates believe is spiritual activities (27c). After this first conclusion, that Socrates believes in spirits, he deduces that he must believe in gods. Socrates begins this second portion of his argument by asking Meletus this question: “Do we not believe spirits to be either gods or the children of gods?” Meletus answers, “Of course” (27d). Socrates points out that, since he believes in spirits, and if spirits are gods, then he believes in gods. Thisargument proves Socrates accusation of jesting and contradicting himself against Meletus, as Socrates makes clear when he says, “this is what I mean when I say you speak in riddles and in jest, as you state that I do not believe in gods and then again that I do, since I believe in spirits” (27d). The other possibility is that spirits are children of gods. Socrates rhetorically proposes through question that if children of gods exists, then gods must exists. He asks, “what man would believe children of the gods to exist, but not gods? That would be as absurd as to believe the young of horses and asses, namely mules, to exist, but not to believe in the existence of horses and asses” (27d-27e). Both disjuncts of his propositions entail that Socrates believes in gods. Socrates does not believe anyone could believe Meletus' accusation, nor could Meletus himself. Therefore, Meletus must be intentionally doing this to accuse of Socrates despite evidence for wrong doing, or in order to test Socrates (27e). This accusation against Socrates, however, is one of many.
In fact, this accusation is part of a two-part accusation from Meletus, the first of which is that Socrates is guilty of deliberately corrupting young men (24b-24c). This accusation re-appears further in the dialogue, in section 33d for example, where Socrates refutes the notion.1 Additionally, Socrates is accused of other accusations to which he responds throughout the trial. These accusations and responses appear in the first section of the work, after which Socrates is sentenced to death. Socrates responses, however, demonstrate that he was unjustly accused, and it was, in fact, the accusers who were guilty on various accounts. The charge against Meletus is a prime example of the charges of guilt that could be made against the accusers, such as Anytus or the council, whom Socrates refers to as Men of
Athens.” In summary, despite the disingenuous accusation made against him, Socrates still countered the accusation, not only refuting it, but also mounting an accusation against his accuser. His argument was simple. He used premises that his accuser already accepted in order to demonstrate Meletus' affidavit, which Socrates regards as similar to accusing him “of not believing in gods, but believing in gods” (27a), to be self-contradictory. Since Socrates did not believe that anyone could believe such a proposition (27e), he accused Meletus of either trying to test him, or accuse him of wrong doing without evidence due to Meletus being insolent, being violent, and having a youthful zeal. Although this exchange between Socrates and Meletus is only one part of one accusation, and those accusations are part of a whole trial, this scene demonstrates a theme throughout the whole trial: Socrates was unjustly condemned to death by means of false accusations, which Socrates demonstrated.
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
Throughout all the years, he never could find anyone as wise as himself, and all he did was make enemies searching. These enemies are now his accusers, and they accuse him of spreading evil doctrines, corrupting the youth, and not believing in the Gods. Throughout the speech, Socrates continues to shoot down every accuser and it is evident that he has done no wrong. Eventually, one of his accusers states that he must be doing something strange and that he wouldnt be that famous if he were like other men. Socrates did not live a very public life unlike most people at that time.
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.
While on trial, Socrates is badgered with questions only to respond with questions of his own. The question of impiety is brought into discussion. Socrates response was “Does any man believe in human activities who does not believe in humans? … Does any man believe in spiritual activities who does not believe in spirits? No one.” (Plato, The Apology, page 31-32) I took this to mean that one cannot believe in the existence of an object without believing in the creator of the object. The gods are viewed as necessary in this just society and their role cannot be brought into question, and therefore the presence of the gods in every person’s life is the necessary part of the justice system in the eyes of Plato.
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.
What exactly is Socrates being accused of? "Socrates is guilty of engaging in inquiries into things beneath the earth and in the heavens, of making the weaker argument appear the stronger, and of teaching others these same things" (29). Socrates is charged with impiety, a person who does not believe in the gods of Athens. Socrates defends this charge, claiming that he was propositioned by the gods through the Oracle of Delphi, to question people's wisdom. He states, "...but when god stationed me, as I supposed and assumed, ordering me to live philosophizing and examining myself and others...that my whole care is to commit no unjust or impious deed." By claiming that defense, Socrates manages to sway Meletus toward his point. This point being that Socrates cannot both be atheistic and to believe in demons, for this would contradict his not believing in gods at all, s...
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.
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.
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.
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 Atheist and 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.
Socrates starts his defense by addressing the jury and telling them that his accusers had a prepared speech, while Socrates' speech will be completely improvised. Socrates continued to further disassociate himself from the opponents by telling the jury to forgive him for his conversational tone in his speech, for that's how he best speaks. He also asks the jury to keep an open mind and not concentrate on how his defense is delivered, but the substance of his defense. Socrates tells the jury that he is not a sophist. Sophists were known for charging fees for their work, and Socrates does not charge a fee for his words. His next decides to cross-examine Meletus. Basically Socrates turns the tables on his accuser and accuses Meletus of "dealing frivolously with serious matters." Socrates says that the youth he supposedly corrupts follows him around on their own free will, because the young men enjoy hearing people and things being questioned. In this line of questioning of Meletus, Socrates makes him look very contradictory to his statements in his affidavit. Socrates then moves on to the second part of his defense. Moving on to the second charge that he does not believe in the Gods accepted ...
In the Apology we find out that Socrates is being indicted by Meletus on the grounds that he i...
It is true that his ideas may have seemed impious and dangerous during “a wave of religious fundamentalism,” but unless there was specific evidence of his impiety other than through the actions of others, this charge should have been invalid. The second reason for Socrates’ innocence is that he was not truly responsible for corrupting the youth. Socrates was accused of doing so by teaching them to be impious and detrimental to Athens. However, he makes a solid point when he says, “Either I do not corrupt the young or, if I do, it is unwillingly, and you are lying in either case. Now if I corrupt them unwillingly, the law does not require you to bring people to court for such unwilling wrongdoings, but … to instruct them and exhort them; for clearly, if I learn better, I shall cease to do what I am doing unwillingly” (Plato 26A). As mentioned earlier, the trial could have been avoided had Meletus spoken to Socrates privately, though he didn’t because he clearly had issues with the older man (Plato 25A). There’s also the concern that he corrupted his former “students” - like Alcibiades and Critias - to the point that they did wrong against Athens, but Socrates can’t be held liable