1.The Unexamined Life is Not Worth Living.
As stated in Plato's apology, Socrates most famously stated during his trial,"The unexamined life is not worth living." Socrates is correct when uttered this infamous quote. He was correct due to the fact living a mundane life not seeking both wisdom and knowledge, to me is a waste in the sense that, whether or not you believe in a higher power, someone or something put you here on earth and to not try and understand why that is, to me is a squander of time.
As for Socrates, when speaking of his beliefs of a higher power, or God, there simply is no evidence that he believes in God. Further more using the term "God" with a capital G is also wrong in the sense that God is referring to the god
…show more content…
of Christianity where as god, in the time of both Socrates and Plato, he talks of a higher power using the generic term "The gods" as to speak of them just like you and I would talk about a man. He believed in the idea that if you examined the life you were given and were obedient in what you have found in truths, you were then able to expel the wrongdoings in one's soul. As Socrates was an aristocrat due to his service in the military, he had a lot of time to practice philosophy. He would often expose people's unknowingness and unlawful reasoning in a hope to "enlighten their soul. This led the people of Athens to label Socrates as a blowhard. Thus leading to his public trial. During his trial he noted that he had no intentions of corrupting anyone, he then began to plea to the court asking that he should be told how to think in a manner that is non-corrupting. (P.53) So was Socrates wrong for essentially annoying people to take an introspective look into their lives? No, he was not wrong, all Socrates was trying to was to get people to think. It was viewed negatively due to the fact that most people view higher level thinking as out of the norm. Yet this is completely wrong because if you do not examine what is happening around your life, it, take control of you as well as people, especially people higher up than you. Parallel to today, a majority of people seek wealth, to achieve this they go to college or seek special skills through a training program. Without college or special training you are very limited in what yo can do in life and you could always be confined to what is in your realm of expertise. Thus you could be controlled by your job. In conclusion Socrates did nothing wrong by modern standards. Yet the way he was thinking during the time period he lived could easily be viewed as questionable. However the fact that he was sentenced to death for what was just petty annoyance was harsh. 3.
Was Socrates Guilty?
Socrates was found guilty of both corrupting the youth and impiety. Was Socrates Guilty? I believe he was not guilty. He certainly did not deserve to die for what he did. Socrates was not guilty because he did nothing that was punishable by death. Also he was not guilty because it is very challenging to define the word "Piety" or what it means to be pius.
It is very hard to believe that the people who charged Socrates of these "Crimes" more than likely did not even understand what Socrates was talking about. So to think that they were considered to be in a place well above Socrates socially and able to sentence him to death should discredit their claims. During the trial Socrates often notes how you cannot define Piety. The charge of "Impiety" coming from Ancient Greece does make sense in the fact that the Greek people believed to be protected by the gods and they did not want to do anything to disrupt that. However the point that times are different today is valid in the sense that back then, the purpose of democracy was to serve to the good of all common people, however I still feel he was doing nothing "harmful" enough to be sentenced to death. I do believe he was used as an example to demonstrate the message of not challenging the status quo or this will
happen.
Here, I would like to ask you, the men of Athens, firstly, why at all should Socrates have mentioned everything I just said, if he really does not believe in god as some of you accused? Moreover, how dare you to accuse such a man, who serves the gods at all expenses and even risks his life for it? Doesn’t such a man deserve our respect? Furthermore, as we believe in our gods, how dare we put such terrible charges upon the wisest man of Athens, who is sent by the gods to awake us Athenians?
Living in a democracy, everyone is exposed through television and other various forms of media everyday to numerous trials by jury. Usually they are rarely given a second thought, but every once in a while along comes a specific trial which captures the attention of the entire country. This goes the same for trials throughout centuries in our past. Although they did not have the same forms of media as in this, modern era, there were still specific trials in which everyone knew about. One trial that stands out is the one against the great philosopher Socrates. Accused of corrupting the youth, being an atheist, and believing in other gods, Socrates faced trial by jury. The early forms of democracy were not as sophisticated and complex as they are now. The outcome of the trial was that Socrates was found guilty and sentenced to be put to death by hemlock poisoning. The question is whether Socrates was truly guilty or just another person fallen to the early form of democracy of a people who were possibly jealous and afraid of Socrates. However, by understanding Socrates intentions, it is clear that he was in fact innocent of the above charges, and was wrongly accused and executed.
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.
point. As Socrates points out, it is impossible for him to be both atheistic and
Socrates lived such a private life that it lead to the most important revelation of his entire life. He would go about his life doing nothing but self-examination. In examining his life so strenuously others would come to him to be taught, or to have their children be taught by Socrates. They would offer him money and he would refuse. They would do whatever they could to learn anything Socrates had to teach. What they did not know is that Socrates was not teaching anyone he was simply going about his usual life and people just happened to learn from it. This was also why Socrates was put on trial. He was brought up on two charges, one of impiety and the other of corrupting the youth. These two charges set the course for the last month of his life.
Socrates did establish that he was doing a “service to the god” by challenging his city to break social norms and try to evolve their ways of thinking, but I do not think the people of the city appreciated his help. While he did do what he felt was his civil duty/duty to the god, those were still the things he was being charged for. He used his “service to the god” as a justification to his accusations as opposed to actually defending himself and denying the accusations (except in the AP by Plato during his cross of Meletus). Socrates should have realized that he was living in traditional Athens and they were not just going to drop their beliefs and become a more modern society due to the philosophy of just one man. I believe that the jury was correct to come to a guilty verdict for Socrates because in the end, his apology just was not good enough.
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.
Through books and essays about Socrates, research, and analysis it shows that he was truly guilty of his crimes and accepted them willingly although he believed he was innocent.
Socrates, according to Plato challenged the norms of society by questioning life and having others question it as well. He was labeled of “corrupting the youth” and for not believing in the Athenians gods. “Socrates is guilty of corrupting the young, and of not acknowledging the gods the city acknowledges, but new daimonic activities instead.” (The Apology, pp 654) Although, he was cast by being “corrupt”, Socrates had many followers that saw him as a wise man. Socrates trial was made up of thirty jurors, who were later known as “The Thirty.” The “Thirty” really wanted was to silence Socrates, rather than taking his life. However, Socrates did not want to disobey the laws, he did not want to be violated of his right to freedom of speech, nor did he did he want to be undermine his moral position. (The Apology, pp. 647) He stood against injustice acts several times while he was in counsel. “I was the sort...
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.
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
Around the time of 469 to 399 A.D. Socrates existed as a stone cutter who had a passion for philosophy. He taught many pupils, including the well-known philosopher Plato, and created a method of teaching called the Socratic Method. This new method of thinking encouraged people to question everything around them and invest in critical evaluation. One day Socrates was accused of corrupting the minds of the Athenian youth. Was Socrates wrongly convicted, or was what the Athenians did just? In the present day many people see that his conviction was unjust, but there are some people, including people who existed during the time of the trial, who believed his accusers were right to judge Socrates as such. People
Socrates was considered by many to be the wisest man in ancient Greece. While he was eventually condemned for his wisdom, his spoken words are still listened to and followed today. When, during his trial, Socrates stated that, “the unexamined life is not worth living” (Plato 45), people began to question his theory. They began to wonder what Socrates meant with his statement, why he would feel that a life would not be worth living. To them, life was above all else, and choosing to give up life would be out of the picture. They did not understand how one would choose not to live life just because he would be unable to examine it.
I think it’s important to first examine the circumstances of what was going on when Socrates stated “the unexamined life is not worth living.” To really get a sense of how critical the situation