Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Four accusations on socrates
Socrates and the good life
Is Socrates guilty of the crimes he was accused of
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Four accusations on socrates
As Socrates continues his argument, he says that he would have been gone if he went into politics. Instead, he lived a private life where he talked with only a few people rather than the many. He does not want to be involved with the many, rather individuals. He then continues to restate that he never charged a fee to talk with people and has not refused to talk with someone. The reason why people want to talk to him is to find out what is just and unjust and finding if people have knowledge or not. Finally, Socrates says that he did not want to suck up to the court. He could have traditionally begged, cried, or mentioned family members to gain sympathy, but he did not. This would not be right for him because it would be embarrassing, this …show more content…
I think this because we do not know what death really is. We do not know what will happen when we die. It could be good or it could be bad, but Socrates believes that we should not fear things that we do not know about. We should only fear things that we know are bad and want the things that we know are good. When we do this with death, it is clear that we do not know about it and should not fear it. This allows us to think that there might be something after death and if we have lived a good life, we will be able to have a better life after death. This is not true of wickedness though. Socrates would say that wickedness is bad and therefore, we should avoid it at all costs. Since his accusers sentenced him to death when he was telling the truth, they are wicked. When someone is wicked, they are bad and should be avoided. When they die, they would not have a good place to go after death while Socrates would have a good place to go. Socrates is not a person who live an immoral life, but rather, his accusers are the one’s who live immoral lives. The person who speaks the truth and lives a just life is someone we should strive to be rather than someone who tries to get off an accusation by going off from the investigation or lying. What Socrates is trying to point out here is that we should not be afraid to die if we are moral people. If we have wisdom, we are able to live a just life and should not fear when we die. Also, Socrates would say that it is harder to escape death than wickedness. This is by prolonging our time here on earth in the physical sense, but Socrates would argue that our soul would continue on and would never die. If we are moral and wise, we would have a soul that could live on that way forever. If we are wicked, we would have a soul that would continue that way even after
In Walter Mosley’s Always Outnumbered, Always Outgunned, the reader is introduced to Socrates Fortlow, an ex-convict who served twenty-seven years for murder and rape. Fortlow is plagued by guilt and, seeing the chaos in his town, feels a need to improve not only his own standards of living, but also those of others in Watts. He attempts this by teaching the people in Watts the lessons he feels will resolve the many challenges the neighbourhood faces. The lessons Fortlow teaches and the methods by which he teaches them are very similar to those of the ancient Greek philosopher for whom Fortlow was named: “‘We was poor and country. My mother couldn’t afford school so she figured that if she named me after somebody smart then maybe I’d get smart’” (Mosley, 44). Though the ancient Greek was born to be a philosopher and Fortlow assumed the philosopher role as a response to the poor state of his life and Watts, both resulted in the same required instruction to their populations. The two Socrates’ both utilize a form of teaching that requires their pupil to become engaged in the lesson. They emphasize ethics, logic, and knowledge in their instruction, and place importance on epistemology and definitions because they feel a problem cannot be solved if one does not first know what it is. Socrates was essential in first introducing these concepts to the world and seemed to be born with them inherent to his being, Fortlow has learned the ideals through life experience and is a real-world application in an area that needs the teachings to get on track. While the two men bear many similarities, their differences they are attributed primarily as a result of their circumstances provide the basis of Fortlow’s importance in Watts and as a modern-...
In the book one of Republic Socrates was concerned about what is justice. He forms a complex analysis of justice by discussing it with Polemarchus, Cephalus, and Thrasymachus. He refutes each proposition said by them, presenting implicit contradictions coming out of these man's arguments. All of this is to reach to, the Sophist, Thrasymachus. According to what's discussed in book one; Socrates sees that the Cephalus's and Polemarchus's common thinking for justice is insufficient. By entering into the dialogue in an aggressive way, Thrasymachus says that he can better explain the issue of justice. The right thing to do here is disregard justice. He blames Socrates for saying nonsense and for just questioning individuals' answers. Thrasymachus
One could see the final walk-away as a complete failure to a then seemingly meaningless story. Yet, I do not see it this way. Although Euthyphro walked away without a resolution, there was still much to be learned. The seemingly arrogant man that we were introduced to in the beginning, was not the same man in the final pages of the book. We may not have received a complete answer, but we did find something better; the knowledge that we cannot believe that our insights are always correct. And this is what Socrates strove to do: to evoke thought. When put on trial, we see this questioning is not an isolated occurrence as he states, “I believe the god has placed me in the city. I never cease to rouse each and every one of you, to persuade and reproach you all day long and everywhere I find myself in your company” (Apology, 30e). Socrates believed it was his duty to live a life of service in order to make people open their minds. In order for people to grow in wisdom, they needed to realize their ignorance. We need to be challenged in order to grow and it is through experiences, like Euthyphro’s, in which we become more
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.
There are times in every mans life where our actions and beliefs collide—these collisions are known as contradictions. There are endless instances in which we are so determined to make a point that we resort to using absurd overstatements, demeaning language, and false accusations in our arguments. This tendency to contradict ourselves often questions our character and morals. Similarly, in The Trial of Socrates (Plato’s Apology), Meletus’ fallacies in reason and his eventual mistake of contradicting himself will clear the accusations placed on Socrates. In this paper, I will argue that Socrates is not guilty of corrupting the youth with the idea of not believing in the Gods but of teaching the youth to think for themselves by looking to new divinities.
It takes one person to begin expanding a thought, eventually dilating over a city, gaining power through perceived power. This is why Socrates would be able to eventually benefit everyone, those indifferent to philosophy, criminals, and even those who do not like him. Socrates, through his knowledge of self, was able to understand others. He was emotionally intelligent, and this enabled him to live as a “gadfly,” speaking out of curiosity and asking honest questions. For someone who possesses this emotional intelligence, a conversation with Socrates should not have been an issue-people such as Crito, Nicostratus, and Plato who he calls out during his speech.
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.
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.
If we could not tell from his punishment, surely the fact that we are reading four separate texts about Socrates indicates that his trial and death by hemlock were both important and controversial. In all three of Plato’s texts (Euthyphro, Apology, and Crito), he looks to defend Socrates from the charges against him: namely corrupting the youth of Athens by disseminating his philosophical teachings in the agora. Interestingly enough, Plato does so through dialectics with Socrates as the main charatcer. While all three works do well to defend Socrates, it is Crito that serves as the best defense of Socrates, and, more importantly, his philosophy. In defending his philosophy, Plato does not simply walk us through it, rather he weaves into a narrative that we both invest ourselves in and truly learn from; Crito best defends Socrates and the activity of philosophy because it puts Socrates’ convictions into action and more effectively carries Plato’s message.
He applies this logic to mean that he must go around Athens and show others that they are not actually wise, so that they can become intelligent like him. As a result, he feels he is helping the society of Athens as a whole. By a small number, Socrates is found guilty and the jury comes to a decision to put Socrates to death. To further his display of haughty behavior Socrates’ response is to say in a mostly joking manner that the city should be giving him a medal of honor. He continues on to reject exile and prison time, suggesting that he pay a fine. Socrates’ reaction is unlike what is to be expected. He believes that it is ridiculous to fear the after-life because it does not make sense to fear things he does not know (29c). When given a chance to defend himself Socrates doesn’t cry, beg, or bring family matters into the courtroom, thinking it better to die after an honorable defense than live on against his own
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 ...
Socrates openly expresses that because of his accusers substantial amount of hate against him, he is demonstrating that they are the ones that want to hide the truth, and convince the jury in their own favor. This again, pertains to his self-confidence and belief in righteousness, Socrates wants to substantiate his innocence and virtue by clarifying how his accusers are unrighteous and unjust. Predominantly, Socrates’ actions of self confidence and opposition towards unrighteousness separated him from other people in his community and manifested his passion towards his morals and beliefs. Socrates is a strong believer in virtue and integrity, and is in complete opposition to unrighteousness.
Socrates discusses that people should not fear death because we do not know the qualities of death. Even though we do not know what death is, he makes some suggestions for the possibilities after death. He suggests that maybe death is just an endless sleep without dreaming, it is where we can finally come to peace with ourselves. He also suggest that maybe in the afterlife he will be able to meet heroic people in the past, where he can share his experience and question people to see whether they are wise. Even in death Socrates is still going to practice philosophy even if the place is bad. Even if he did not live a just life that he thought he did, he can examine what he did wrong and fix the problems in the after life. I agree with Socrates
The life of the Greek philosopher Socrates (469-399 BC) marks such a critical point in Western thought that standard histories divide Greek philosophy into pre-Socratic and post-Socratic periods. Socrates left no writings of his own, and his work has inspired almost as many different interpretations as there have been interpreters. He remains one of the most important and one of the most enigmatic figures in Western philosophy. As a young man Socrates became fascinated with the new scientific ideas that Anaxagoras and the latter's associate Archelaus had introduced to Athens. He seems for a time to have been the leader of an Athenian research circle--which would explain why the first appearance of Socrates in literature is as a villainous, atheistic scientist in The Clouds of Aristophanes. Young Socrates also knew the Sophists and listened to their debates and ceremonial orations. Socrates and the Sophists Neither science nor Sophistry, however, could answer a new philosophic question that struck him. The earlier Greek thinkers had been concerned almost wholly with physics and cosmology until the Sophists suggested that what should be done instead was to teach young men skills to satisfy their natural self-interest. Instead, Socrates wondered: "What is a 'self'?" Although "Know Thyself!" was one of three sayings carved on the Temple of Apollo at Delphi, the directive proved difficult to carry out. The so-called scientific views of the time, particularly that of atomism, defined the self as a physical organ that responded to environmental pressure. Socrates felt, however, that the Sophists, for all their talk of self-interest, had little curiosity about the status of a self; they assumed that it was merely an isolated center constantly greedy for more pleasure, prestige, and power. The Sophists further thought that the values that people advocated were all conventional, varying from one culture to another, and that no one would ever act against his or her own interest, regardless of how many people talked as though they would. This complex of ideas offered little to explain human nature and excellence. Socrates' Later Life and Thought Socrates, setting about his search for the self, was convinced of the importance of his quest. Until educators and teachers knew what human excellence was, he thought, they were engaging in false pretenses by claiming that they knew how to improve students or societies. Socrates believed that objective patterns, or "forms," exist that define human excellence, that these are neither culturally relative nor subjective, and that philosophic inquiry could discover them.
Socrates was an insightful philosopher who had an opinion on all the basic fundamental questions. He had very strong beliefs that he willed others into believing through questioning and proving ignorance in others beliefs. He has particular views on every fundamental question and particular views on how people should live their lives. He says God has spoken to him about philosophy and says that it is his destiny and it is his calling in life. Through philosophy he searches for answers to the fundamental questions and gains wisdom and knowledge. The fundamental question of condition is the question of what, if anything, has gone wrong with the world? The question of solution is what can fix the problem? Then there is Death which asks what happens