Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Platos apology summary
Death in platos world
Platos apology summary
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Platos apology summary
In the Crito, Socrates makes some surprisingly strong claims about the voice of the Laws of Athens, which speaks to him and explains why it is unjust to escape the prison. He claims that the citizens are bound to the Laws, and people ought to follow it. If one breaks it, it would cause great harm to the whole country. I will argue that the Athens does not held together by the Laws. I will also claim that neither Socrates nor citizens have an agreement with the laws. Socrates states that the Laws exist for its own purpose. The citizen is bound to the laws like a child is bound to a parent. So, to go against the Laws is like striking a parent. The Laws point out the role they have played in shaping Socrates, and how important their relationship …show more content…
If Socrates do have an agreement with the Laws, he can persuade the Laws that he is wrongfully imprisoned, he should be free to leave without acting unjustly. But the point is the Laws did not sentenced him. It is the human accusers who say he is wrong and they used the Laws to sentence him to death. All the juries in the court believe that he did corrupted the young. Yet, there are no witnesses were summed to the court. The jury were voted on what they believe he has done to the Athens. Therefore, there is no such thing as an agreement between each citizen and the Laws. Socrates’ argument clearly suggest that the difficulty here is one of distinguishing between the Laws themselves and the human accusers who have sentenced Socrates. Regardless, In The Apology, Socrates failed to convince his accusers that he was innocent, and they used the Laws to sentence him to death. It is the human accusers who have sentenced Socrates not the …show more content…
When discussing the soul, we are often given the image of the soul imprisoned by the body. Thus, death is a kind of liberation from this prison. Only through death can our soul achieve that release where we won’t make choose base on the distraction. Socrates concludes that the soul is what goes through states of change. Surely, Socrates wants to argue that the body dies while the soul lives on, free from the body. The Soul is something distinct from the part of the human body, something that enters the body and imbues it life, but that can exist independently of it. The soul gives the body life, but has no life independent of the body. Thus, the soul is the master of the body. Having wrapped up his myth, Socrates remarks that the time has come for him to drink the poison. He states that after his is death, his soul will leave his body and will live on eternally. The body that left behind is not Socrates, because Socrates’ soul will no longer inhabit
He views death as a separation of the soul from the body when the body and soul are together it is life. He believed this so powerfully, that he did not only fear death but welcomed it. Socrates believed that he had to live a life full and hope for death. He had to convince his disciples Cebes and Simmias to be okay with his death since they did not believe in his beliefs. Socrates believed that men were the property of the gods and stated, “it is gods who care for us, and for the gods, we human beings are among their belongings. Don't you think so?” (Phaedo, 62b). Cebes was in an agreement with Socrates on that argument. They both believed that if a man kills himself he will be punished. Cebes suggest that when the soul leaves a body, it may dissipate, no longer existing as one unit. However, Socrates argues that in favor of this myth, souls after death will eventually return to the world in other bodies. Everything that comes to come from its opposites that is explained in the first argument. Simmias then argues that destroying a body will destroy the soul in it. Cebes declares that there is no proof that the souls are immortal and suffer no negative effects after each death and rebirth. Socrates tries to convince his friends with the Argument of Opposites and the Theory of Forms. Socrates hopes that the theory of forms will help explain causation and proof of the
Socrates refuses to disobey the law. He believes in the correctness of the cities laws. He believes it is never right to act unjustly. He thinks that if you do not agree with the laws of the area that you are living at, then to leave and go somewhere else. He argues that the government could be seen as “his parents, also those who brought him up,” (Crito, 51e), since he has lived there his entire life and when you live somewhere for so long you should “persuade us or to do what we say,” (Crito, 52a) or leave. Socrates tells Crito that
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.
Socrates reaches a conclusion that defies a common-sense understanding of justice. Nothing about his death sentence “seems” just, but after further consideration, we find that his escape would be as fruitless as his death, and that in some sense, Socrates owes his obedience to whatever orders Athens gives him since he has benefited from his citizenship.
In any case of law, when considering truth and justice, one must first look at the validity of the court and the system itself. In Socrates' case, the situation is no different. One may be said to be guilty or innocent of any crime, but guilt or innocence is only as valid as the court it is subjected to. Therefore, in considering whether Socrates is guilty or not, it must be kept in mind the norms and standards of Athens at that time, and the validity of his accusers and the crimes he allegedly committed. Is Socrates guilty or innocent of his accusations?
Socrates was not guilty as charged; he had done nothing wrong, as seen in the Apology. Not even a priest could tell Socrates what he had done wrong religiously, Euthyphro wasn’t even able to give Socrates a precise definition of piety. It is then questioned by Crito why Socrates would remain to face a penalty for a crime he did not commit. In the Crito, it is explained why, although innocent, Socrates must accept the penalties his peers have set upon him. It is his peers that will interpret and enforce the laws, not the law which will enforce it. Even if the enforcers don’t deserve attention and respect because they have no real knowledge to the situation, Socrates had put himself under their judgment by going to the trial. Therefore, Socrates must respect the decisions made by the masses because the decisions are made to represent the laws, which demand each citizen’s respect.
In Plato’s “Crito”, Socrates, who is convicted of spreading false beliefs to the youth in Athens is in an argument with his friend, Crito. Crito tries to convince Socrates of the reality of his sentence and that it would only make sense for him to escape. He gives many reasons of why escaping is necessary and moral. Crito states,
Socrates: A Gift To The Athenians As Socrates said in Apology by Plato, “...the envy and detraction of the world, which has been the death of many good men, and will probably be the death of many more…”(Philosophical Texts, 34) Throughout history, many leaders have been put to death for their knowledge. In Apology, Socrates- soon to be put to death- says he was placed in Athens by a god to render a service to the city and its citizens. Yet he will not venture out to come forward and advise the state and says this abstention is a condition on his usefulness to the city.
Upon reading Plato, The Trial and Death of Socrates, Socrates strongly held views on the relationship between morality and laws become apparent to the reader. Equally, Socrates makes clear why laws should be followed and why disobedience to the law is rarely justified.
When Socrates posited the idea that the laws and citizens work together synergistically, was this not broken when Socrates was unjustly convicted of a crime? The logic of Socrates would hold that one should act in accordance with just laws, but when the legal system becomes unjust, one is not required to follow the laws. The only alternative to abiding the law is to expatriate or persuade the government, so one would think that Socrates would find the code of law not worth adhering to after it was proven unjust through his trial especially after dismissing the wisdom of public opinion. The tacit agreement of the citizen to the system of laws is also a point to be disputed. An individual’s inhabitance of an area does not suppose that he has extensive legal knowledge of his place of residence. For a legal code to be truly just, the citizens must be aware of all possible infractions and physically indicate their subscription to them. If a citizen were unknowingly to commit a crime, how could he be justly held accountable? Socrates should not be held accountable for his crime unless he consciously agreed to the laws and understood his action was illegal before it was
Socrates questions Thrasymachus on why he adds the detail of the stronger to his definition of justice. Socrates than asks, if it is just for everyone to follow the laws that the ruler has made, if the ruler has made unjust laws. His argument is that people, even rulers make mistakes. This meaning that if a ruler makes mistakes on the law does that still make it just. It is a very conflicting argument to think about, if the rules are not just then why should they be followed but the rules were also put in place by someone who is supposed to know the difference between just and unjust and choose correctly. This relates to what Socrates says during his trial portrayed in the Apology. Socrates claims
In the essay I am going to explore the question, “Socrates’ student, Crito, begs him to break the law in order to save his life: either escape from prison or bribe the judges. Why does he want him to choose this solution? What is your response to Crito? What is Socrates’ response to Crito? Do you believe there are any times when you can justify breaking a law? Does Socrates believe there are any times when breaking the law can be justified? Would you have escaped from prison if you had been faced with the circumstances that Socrates was faced with? Why or why not? What does Socrates say as the reasons he remains in prison and accepts his death sentence?”
First and foremost, Socrates believed that when a person dies the body is what seems to die while the soul continues to live and exist. Although many suggested that when the body dies the soul dies with it, Socrates provides numerous arguments to prove his point otherwise. The arguments that were presented consisted of The argument of Reincarnation, The argument of Opposites, The argument of Recollection, and The argument of Forms. The argument that was most convincing for me was that of the Argument of Forms because Socrates makes his most compelling arguments here and it’s the most effective. On the other hand, the argument that I saw to be the least convincing was that of the Argument of Recollection and Reincarnation because both arguments fail to fully support the idea of the soul being immortal.
Socrates took the one step further and made a scenario where they attempt to escape the prison and law confronted them. Then, they would consider this as an attempt to destroy the laws and the city as a whole. Now, Socrates started questioning Crito of what they would reply to the questions. There is not much for Crito to answer. If he answers with no, what would be the reason of this attempt? And it is not logical because Socrates had rejected the exile. Crito answered yes and Socrates said “…what charges have you to bring against the city and ourselves that you should try to destroy us...” Socrates have no charges against the city.
...ns. Why would he do this if he did not see the laws of Athens as just? In order to fulfill the agreement he has made with Athenian law, Socrates must accept the punishment he is given, though he feels that his being punished is Athens wronging him. It would be wrong, by his view, to escape from prison, though he would not be pursued, because he would be breaking his agreement to obey Athenian law. Since he and Crito previously agreed that one must never do wrong, he simply must stay in jail until his death. This is merely one example of the way in which Socrates uses a method of logical dialogue in order to make his point. He appears to be unmatched in his skills of deduction and consistently demonstrates his love of knowledge and truth. Socrates exemplifies all that is philosophy, both as a student and a teacher, because of his constant, active pursuit of wisdom.