Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essays on the book "the last days of socrates
Essays on the book "the last days of socrates
Socrates impact on western civilization
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Essays on the book "the last days of socrates
Well-known for his significant impact on the philosophical world, Socrates was one of the first people to truly question individuals and take the average level of thinking to a much more elevated level. The Last Days of Socrates, specifically Euthyphro, Apology, and Crito, written by Plato demonstrates Socrates’ great use of the Socratic method as well as rhetoric, the art of persuasion. Many people looked down upon Socrates because they viewed his calling, as told by the Oracle of Delphi, to be impious. Although Socrates was put to death for living a life such as his, he was very extremely successful during his time alive. Socrates was successful in both the realm of philosophical truth and in the outside world because humans used rhetorical ways of thinking to find purpose and make decisions without the influence of other members in society. Euthyphro in The Last Days of Socrates is based greatly around Socrates’ examining the human mind and digging for the answers to rather obvious questions. A specific instance of rhetoric within this section of the book is when Socrates is talking to Euthyphro and says, “And perhaps, Euthyphro, when asked what the holy is, you don’t want to point out the essence for me, but to tell me of some attribute which attaches to it, saying that holiness has the attribute of being approved by all the gods; what it is, you’ve not said yet” (Eut. 22.11a). In this particular section of Euthyphro, Socrates is examining Euthyphro to figure out what is holy and unholy, what is just and unjust. Euthyphro is incapable of answering Socrates questions because he cannot explain in detail what he is thinking. This specific instance of rhetoric is used to Socrates’ advantage because he shows that he is aware of w... ... middle of paper ... ..., he was also exceptionally successful in the outside world, both in individuals and Athens. This new way of thinking aided Athens tremendously in several ways. Rhetoric began being used in political elections, debates, storytelling, and even teaching methods in schools. Much like in the world of thought, using rhetoric as a new thinking process helped people make large decisions on their own, varying in reference to things such as school and friends. The use of rhetoric also aided people in finding their purpose in life. During the time when rhetoric became popular, many people valued Socrates’ thinking and applied it in numerous ways to their own lives. Socrates’ rhetoric was used much to his advantage throughout The Last Days of Socrates and it ultimately had a tremendous impact in the realm of philosophical truth, as well as the outside world, including Athens.
The first thing one must consider is whether there is any merit in writing or rhetoric. According to Socrates, speech writing is not bad. The only way it can ever be bad is if it is not done well. Therefore, one must consider what is necessary for writing well. Socrates proposes that in order to write well, one must know what is true about his subject. However, Phaedrus points out that perhaps all that is necessary to be seen as a good writer is to know what the people believe to be right about that subject and then write about it as they view it. However, Socrates shows that this is erroneous because then one can persuade others that wrong is right, and as a result rhetoric would have poor results. Instead, Socrates proposes that correct rhetoric is a tool through which knowledge is used to expertly persuade others. However, rhetoric can also be seen as, not a form of art, rather a talent. If it is thus seen, then in order to become an expert in it one must be born with the talent. Even if rhetoric were only a talent, there are steps to improve and build on it. For example, one may have talent, but without an acquaintance with the truth of the subject, one cannot give a professional speech. Once one is acquainted with his subject, th...
He establishes that “the pious is what all the gods love”. Socrates immediately asks a clarifying question, asking whether the gods love pious acts because they are pious or if it because since the gods love these actions it makes them pious. Euthyphro choses to say that the gods love pious acts because they are pious, which was a mistake in his thought process. Euthyphro committed the begging the question fallacy. Socrates shows that although Euthyphro is deemed an expert in this field, he does know understand piety at all. He has brought the conversation to the beginning by saying that pious acts are pious because they are pious, which is not an explanation. It is redundant in thinking, which is what Socrates wanted to avoid. At the end when Socrates tries to further push Euthyphro’s thinking, Euthyphro merely gives up and avoids Socrates altogether. Plato again illustrates the importance of applying rational thought when one ventures to find the truth. Euthyphro did not ask himself insightful and challenging questions to further push his idea towards the truth. Had he use rational standards, he would developed his idea in a much clearer
Socrates was philosophizing in order to make people recognize this. Maybe they did not want to be challenged, but Socrates persisted and this persistence caused him to become beloved to some, yet hated by others. His contribution to Athens was to evoke thought, and although he did this well, it would become his poison, quite literally. Regardless, the story of the Euthyphro is one of the classic examples of how Socrates was making his name and awakening people’s minds to the thoughts that they did not think to have. Euthyphro’s conversation with Socrates was only one of many and I believe it is safe to say that the frustration on the subject’s behalf was not an isolated
Socrates position on oratory is that it is not a craft but a knack or a part of flattery, and that it can be used for both good and evil persuasion. You can persuade others to se your point of view, but without intelligence it can be unjust. He believes that, "…doing what one sees fit without intelligence is bad." Socrates argument is that moral virtue is s form of intelligence, and convinces Polus that in order to have great power, you must use it for what you believe to be the better. Polus believes that those who have the power do what they see fit, and at the same time are doing what it is they want to do. Socrates refutes this and says that though the tyrant may do what he sees fit, it is not really what he wants to do.
Socrates is also a believer in the value of dialogue. In fact all of his teachings are in the form of a conversation. Through dialogue Socrates can challenge the idea of those he talks to. The challenging of ideas is the most important part of dialogue because it forces you to defend your ideas, and therefore realize what exactly it is that you believe. If you approach a philosophical conversation with an open mind, conflict can either strengthen your belief, or cause you to modify your former beliefs to something that works better for you.
Callicles seems to be manipulating parts of Socrates’s rebuttal of whether or not rhetoric is necessary and just, more so than philosophy. While offering what seem to be kind words towards Socrates, Callicles comes off as slightly insulting when regarding Socrates’s rebuttal throughout the entire discussion. When Callicles suggests that Socrates pursuit for defending philosophy is childlike, it almost seems as though he is saying that Socrates has not real grounds for his arguments regarding rhetoric. Callicles believes that rhetoric is entirely necessary more so than philosophy, and by pressing as deeply as Socrates has about philosophy, he is simply wasting his own time. It seems as though Callicles is trying to end the discussion by simply degrading the nature of Socrates’s entire argument and life’s dedication to
Socrates is one of the greatest logicians humankind has ever produced. All the scholars before him engaged in different trivial matters regarding more concrete aspects of our reality, such as mathematics or natural phenomenon, but Socrates was different. Socrates sought out more intrapersonal questions, he devoted his entire life seeking out answers to these questions. Eventually this ambition led him to a notorious standing within his city of Athens, eventually leading to his trial and execution. The rebounding question that comes from this is “Should Socrates have stayed in prison and faced his execution?”. This is controversial because Socrates was wrongly convicted in his trial, but disregarding that he
Socrates does not rely on rational argument alone because not every audience is receptive to it. He explains to Phaedrus that “the man who means to be an expert in rhetoric must know how many forms soul has.” Socrates is claiming that one must alter the way he delivers a speech in order for it to be well received by his audience. For example, if one were to give a lesson on Phaedrus, he would provide a remarkably simpler summary to a group of middle schoolers than he would a group of graduate students. Socrates uses myth when arguing with Phaedrus because he felt that was the most effective way to deliver his points regarding how to improve Phaedrus’ speech.
In the Euthyphro, Socrates is making his way into the courthouse; however, prior to entering he had a discussion with a young priest of Athens, Euthyphro. This dialogue relates religion and justice to one another and the manner in which they correlate. Euthyphro feels as though justice necessitates religion and Socrates feels the opposite, religion necessitates justice. Euthyphro claims that religion is everything, justice, habits, traditions, customs, cultures, etc. all are derived from religion. Socrates went on to question what exactly would be the definition of pious. Euthyphro offered Socrates three definitions of pious and in all three Socrates was able to successfully find fault...
It was in the real world that he observed in disgust men using rhetoric “pleading in defense of injustice” (Plato, p. 108) Such a practice made the master scholar resent its perpetuation of false truths in what he felt was an already convoluted world. A discussion between Plato’s mentor Socrates and the student Polus help clarify these feelings. While in the midst of a heated discussion Socrates states that “rhetoric is of no use to man”, a sentiment also held by Plato (Gorgias, p. 108). Expanding on this idea of two worlds, we learn that this world of material is in perpetual movement, staying in flux and hence never staying the same This world is a reflection or imitation of a stable, ideal word in which there resides unchanging ideal forms or eternal essences of all physical objects. Also within this realm reside perfect concepts grasped by reason and
Aristotle. On Rhetoric. The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present. 2nd ed. Ed. Trans. Patricia Bizzell & Bruce Herzberg. New York: Bedford/St. Martins, 2001. Book I, Chapter V. Print.
This is a reasonable answer on all fronts. Not to say that Euthyphro was not a holy man, but he certainly could not define his own existence- which is the exact sentiment which Socrates was trying to provoke. There is a clear difference between the definition of Socrates and the definitions of Euthyphro.
Plato and Aristotle are two rhetoricians than had a great impact on the history of rhetoric. Although they were similar in many ways, their use and definition of rhetoric were different. Plato had the more classical approach where he used rhetoric as a means of education to pass down his beliefs and practice of rhetoric to his students. He believed that it should be used to educate the masses, provoking thought, and thereby preserving that knowledge. Plato thought that rhetoric should be used to convey truth, truths already known to the audience, revealed through that dialectic critical thought. Plato also operated on absolute truths, things that are right or wrong, black or white. Aristotle was more modern in that he used rhetoric as a tool of persuasion in the polis. He thought that the main purpose of rhetoric was to persuade, provoking emotions for his audience as a tool of persuasion. Aristotle’s rhetoric was more science based, using enthymemes and syllogism to foster logical thinking. He believed that rhetoric was a means of discovering truth. His rhetoric was highly deliberative since he used it mainly for persuasion. I will discuss their differences in more depth in the following essay.
In Gorgias Plato claims that rhetoric is not a τέχνη (462b) and his accusations against sophists or rhetoricians seem to be reducible to three closely related arguments: first, that rhetoric doesn’t have its own subject (that would make it a τέχνη); second (and most importantly) that it lacks the theoretical basis that is necessary for a τέχνη, and thirdly that rhetoric is used for morally base intentions and pursuits, which corrupt the souls of the citizenship (503a). And, as will be apparent below, a discussion of these problems is offered both in Plato’s theory of true rhetoric in Phaedrus as well as in Aristotle’s treatment of rhetoric in his Rhetoric.
Plato defines rhetoric as “the art of ruling the minds of men” (Bloom). The sophists were instructors in the disciplines of rhetoric and overall excellence. Their teachings thrived in the fifth century B.C. Through the work of Protagoras, Gorgias, Antiophon, and other sophists, the people of Athens gained higher education and stopped accepting everything they were taught as absolute fact. This questioning of traditional philosophical schools eventually led to the emergence of other ways of thought such as skepticism.