Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Greek Tragedy Plays
Era of Classical Greek Tragedy
Greek Tragedy Plays
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Justice The theme that relates the three books Electra, Apology and the Crito is Justice. Examining the two definitions of Justice that are from each of the three books. Doing this is a way to compare the differences and similarities between each book and more importantly the difference between the different definitions of Justice. The definition that the main character of Electra uses as the definition is Justice is Punishment for unlawfulness with more unlawfulness to satisfy Electra’s own self-interest. The book Electra was written approximately in 450- 440 BC by Sophocles. It is a Greek tragedy that has strong connections to Homer’s Odyssey. The book is biased on the story of Electra and her brother Orestes, they take vengeance in their mother and Clytemnestra and her lover Aegisthus for murdering their father Agamemnon after he returns home from the Trojan War. …show more content…
Specifically looking at what Meletus thought Justice was, see that it is very similar to Electra. “You have made it sufficiently obvious, Meletus, that you have never had any concern for our youth; you show your indifference clearly; that you have given no thought to the subject for which you bring me to trail.” This is Socrates making a defense against the accusations of Metetus. Metetus as rushed into this trial and is guilty of “Irresponsibly bring people to court”. He is angry with Socrates and is trying to get Socrates back for embarrassing him in the streets of Athens. Meletus is trying to get revenge to make himself feel better and prove that Socrates does not know what he is talking about. By doing that he would be proving he is smarter than Socrates, bringing these charges on him are more out of revenge than trying to maintain the law. There it is Metelus’s definition of Justice, retaliation for what happened to make himself feel better. He thinks that he was treated unjustly and wants his
Before discussing justice in the epic, it is important to establish the meaning of the term. For our present purpose, justice will specifically apply to the social system of moral checks and balances. Acts that are valued in society are rewarded materially or emotionally. Acts that are devalued lead to punishment. Also, recipients of unmerited punishment receive compensation for their injuries.
For these two articles that we read in Crito and Apology by Plato, we could know Socrates is an enduring person with imagination, because he presents us with a mass of contradictions: Most eloquent men, yet he never wrote a word; ugliest yet most profoundly attractive; ignorant yet wise; wrongfully convicted, yet unwilling to avoid his unjust execution. Behind these conundrums is a contradiction less often explored: Socrates is at once the most Athenian, most local, citizenly, and patriotic of philosophers; and yet the most self-regarding of Athenians. Exploring that contradiction, between Socrates the loyal Athenian citizen and Socrates the philosophical critic of Athenian society, will help to position Plato's Socrates in an Athenian legal and historical context; it allows us to reunite Socrates the literary character and Athens the democratic city that tried and executed him. Moreover, those help us to understand Plato¡¦s presentation of the strange legal and ethical drama.
When asked if there’s anyone in the world who would knowingly choose to be harmed, Meletus replies with “Of course not.”, yet he still insists that Socrates intentionally corrupts the youth (p. 56). Socrates knows that those who are wicked will not only cause harm to strangers, but also will cause harm to those who are close to them (p. 56). Socrates is close to those he teaches and does not want to bring harm to himself (p. 56). Therefore, Socrates would never intentionally corrupt the youth (p.56). Socrates goes on to argue that even if he was unwillingly corrupting the youth of Athens, Meletus’ charges would still hold no real value as it would be an involuntary misdemeanor (p. 56).When somebody unknowingly commits a crime they aren’t summoned to court, they are taken aside and made to see the error of their ways (p. 56). So why was Socrates dragged to court? If someone had tried to enlighten Socrates, and had helped him to see that what he was doing was wrong, then he would have stopped doing that which was unintentional (p. 56). Socrates concludes this part of his argument by stating that no one had tried to enlighten him and by once again questioning why he was brought to court, when court is intended for people who need to be punished, not for people who need to be enlightened (p.
Aeschylus. “The Oresteia.” Aeschylus: The Oresteia. Tran. Robert Fagles. New York: Penguin Books, 1979. 99-277.
The first main argument in support of the thesis is that it is society’s job to educate the youth and Socrates argues that it is impossible for just one man to corrupt the youth. This is the first mistake made by Meletus, as he makes the absurd overstatement that “every Athenian improves and elevates [the youth]; all with the exception of [Socrates],” who alone is their corrupter. Socrates goes on to defend himself by alluding to a horse analogy. Socrates argues that (P1) trainers improve horses, (P2) all others who simply ride horses, injure or corrupt horses, (P3) there are fewer trainers than riders, (P4) therefore, those who corrupt horses are in smaller number than those who ride horses and we can conclude that (C) people are corrupted by a majority rather than a minority. Socrates believes that this analogy to horses must be true of all animals and furthermore, for all people. Socrates utilizes this analogy to point out that Meletus’ overstatement is rather ironic, since according to Meletus all other beings except for the youth in the world are more likely to be corrupted by a majority rather than a minority. For this reason, it is more logical that the youth have been corrupted by a majority like the judges, senators, and the Athenians rather than one man, Socrates. Meletus’ overstatement and inability to defend himself reflects poorly on his character and further gives more authority to Socrates as it seems that Meletus is only arguing for the sake of argument and that he has no true evidence to prove that Socrates is guilty of corrupting the youth.
It is his companions, Glaucon and Adeimantus, who revitalized Thrasymachus’ claim of justice. Thrasymachus believes that justice is what the people who are in charge say it is and from that point on it is Socrates’ goal to prove him wrong. Socrates believes that justice is desired for itself and works as a benefit. All four characters would agree that justice has a benefit. To accurately prove his point of justice, Socrates has to reference his own version of nature and nurture. He, Socrates, believes that justice is innately born in everyone. No one person is incapable of being just. Justice is tantamount to a skill or talent. Like any skill or talent, justice must be nurtured so that it is at its peak and mastered form. The city that Socrates has built is perfect in his eyes because every denizen has been gifted with a talent, then properly educated on how best to use their talent, and lastly able to apply their just morals in everyday
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.
The act of revenge in classical Greek plays and society is a complex issue with unavoidable consequences. In certain instances, it is a more paramount concern than familial ties. When a family member is murdered another family member is expected to seek out and administer revenge. If all parties involved are of the same blood, the revenge is eventually going to wipe out the family. Both Aeschylus, through "The Oresteia Trilogy," and Sophocles, through "Electra," attempt to show the Athenians that revenge is a just act that at times must have no limits on its reach. Orestes and his sister Electra, the children of the slain Agamemnon, struggle on how to avenge their father's death. Although unsure what course of action they must take, both brother and sister are in agreement that revenge must occur. Revenge is a crucial part of Greek plays that gives the characters a sense of honor and their actions a sense of justice.
The Oedipus is essentially a tragic analysis. Everything is already there, so it needs only to be extricated.
...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.
Traditionally justice was regarded as one of the cardinal virtues; to avoid injustices and to deal equitable with both equals and inferiors was seen as what was expected of the good man, but it was not clear how the benefits of justice were to be reaped. Socrates wants to persuade from his audience to adopt a way of estimating the benefits of this virtue. From his perspective, it is the quality of the mind, the psyche organization which enables a person to act virtuously. It is this opposition between the two types of assessment of virtue that is the major theme explored in Socrates’ examination of the various positions towards justice. Thus the role of Book I is to turn the minds from the customary evaluation of justice towards this new vision. Through the discourse between Cephalus, Polemarchus and Thrasymachus, Socaretes’ thoughts and actions towards justice are exemplified. Though their views are different and even opposed, the way all three discourse about justice and power reveal that they assume the relation between the two to be separate. They find it impossible to understand the idea that being just is an exercise of power and that true human power must include the ability to act justly. And that is exactly what Socrates seeks to refute.
In the Apology we find out that Socrates is being indicted by Meletus on the grounds that he i...
Sophocles’ and Euripides’ versions of Electra carry, among many similarities, a central theme of revenge. The characters, Electra and Orestes, must reunite to avenge their father’s murder. Misfortunately, in both versions the just solution leads the siblings to destroying their own mother. Both versions of Electra can be compared to Aeschylus’ Libation Bearers. However, they are both more dramatic, and more similar to each other than if each Electra was individually compared to the play by Aeschylus. The biggest differences between the two versions of Electra, are found within the characters and their development. I also believe that, the differences we see in these characters’ personalities between the two plays , contribute to some of the two authors’ variations in the story line.
This paper aims to study two significant playwrights, Sophocles and Euripides, and compare their respective attitudes by examining their plays in respect to plot and character structures. To achieve this goal, the paper is organized into two main sections. In the first section, we provide a brief biography of both Sophocles and Euripides. The second and last section includes summaries of Sophocles’ Electra and Euripides’ Electra which were based on same essentials and give an opportunity to observe the differences of the playwrights. This section also includes the comparisons that are made by our observations about the plays.
Herodotus and Sophocles both believe(conclude in their texts that) God expresses his will through divine communication and thus the inescapability of Gods will is enforced by the placement of human beings who act to fulfill divine messages.