Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Socrates ideas and arguments
Philosophy of socrates
Socrates ideas and arguments
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Socrates ideas and arguments
Over the years of my highschool and college education, I have read the “Apology of Socrates” and “The Republic of Plato” four times. Every time I read these two texts, I come out of the experience with something new. There is just so much information in these two books that you are never able to catch all the little details and hidden meanings. I imagine that even if I read these books hundreds of times, I still wouldn’t have grasped all that I was intended to. I think the reason behind this is because Socrates’ personality is so complex, and you never fully understand exactly what he’s trying to say. Nothing about Socrates is concrete, and that is because he never says what is on his mind. Instead he just asks questions, and perhaps hints at what he is thinking about but never says it himself. This always leaves me in such a confused state, trying to guess if his hints are genuine or if they are part of some type of reverse psychology, or even if he just wants us to think that they are part of reverse psychology. Trying to decipher the language of Socrates is a difficult task for the most part. As I mentioned earlier, Socrates’ personality is extremely complex, more than our brains can imagine. The most important characteristic he owns would probably be his ability to steer a conversation as he pleases. I never see Socrates in a speechless state where
We don’t really get to see Socrates in action in the “Apology of Socrates”, but we do in “The Republic of Plato”. After reading these two books a few times I have come to the conclusion that Socrates is innocent. Usually people think Socrates is innocent based on the fact that they believe his accusations are not necessarily bad. Although I also believe that they aren’t bad, I have based my conclusion of Socrates’ innocence only on his actions in “The Republic of
Throughout all the years, he never could find anyone as wise as himself, and all he did was make enemies searching. These enemies are now his accusers, and they accuse him of spreading evil doctrines, corrupting the youth, and not believing in the Gods. Throughout the speech, Socrates continues to shoot down every accuser and it is evident that he has done no wrong. Eventually, one of his accusers states that he must be doing something strange and that he wouldnt be that famous if he were like other men. Socrates did not live a very public life unlike most people at that time. His thoughts of being virteous had more to do with examining yourself and becoming a better person and in that way, you benifit society. He did not believe Athens to be virtuos at all, and that they relied on materail things and reputation rather than finding happiness by searching for it deep within
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.
After reading “The Apology of Socrates”, I feel very strongly that Socrates was innocent in the allegations against him. “The Apology of Socrates” was written by Plato, Socrates most trusted pupil, who in fact wrote everything for Socrates. Numerous times in his defense, Socrates points out ways that what he is being accused of is false. The point of this paper is to show how Socrates did this, and to explain how he proved his innocence by using these quotes. He uses a lot of questions to the accusers to prove his points and is very skilled in speech and knowledge. This essay’s purpose is to explain why I think Socrates was innocent, and how he proves that in his speech.
... a criminal matter nor a strain on the Athenian society, but a challenge to an oppressive and aristocracy ruling class. Socrates became a symbol of true wisdom and knowledge, a symbol that needed to be disposed of for the elites to remain the power holders in society.
Socrates, in his conviction from the Athenian jury, was both innocent and guilty as charged. In Plato’s Five Dialogues, accounts of events ranging from just prior to Socrates’ entry into the courthouse up until his mouthful of hemlock, both points are represented. Socrates’ in dealing with moral law was not guilty of the crimes he was accused of by Meletus. Socrates was only guilty as charged because his peers had concluded him as such. The laws didn’t find Socrates guilty; Socrates was guilty because his jurors enforced the laws. The law couldn’t enforce itself. Socrates was accused of corrupting Athens’ youth, not believing in the gods of the city and creating his own gods. In the Euthyphro, Socrates defends himself against the blasphemous charges outside the courthouse to a priest Euthyphro. Socrates looks to the priest to tell him what exactly is pious so that he may educate himself as to why he would be perceived as impious. Found in the Apology, another of Plato’s Five Dialogues, Socrates aims to defend his principles to the five hundred and one person jury. Finally, the Crito, an account of Socrates’ final discussion with his good friend Crito, Socrates is offered an opportunity to escape the prison and his death sentence. As is known, Socrates rejected the suggestion. It is in the Euthyphro and the Apology that it can be deduced that Socrates is not guilty as charged, he had done nothing wrong and he properly defended himself. However, in the Crito, it is shown that Socrates is guilty only in the interpretation and enforcement of Athens’ laws through the court system and its jurors. Socrates’ accusations of being blasphemous are also seen as being treasonous.
Socrates starts by speaking of his first accusers. He speaks of the men that they talked to about his impiety and says that those that they persuaded in that Socrates is impious, that they themselves do not believe in gods (18c2). He tells the court of how long they have been accusing him of impiety. He states that they spoke to others when they were at an impressionable age (18c5). These two reasons alone should have been good enough to refute the first accusers of how they were wrong about him but Socrates went on. He leaves the first accusers alone because since they accused him a long time ago it was not relevant in the current case and began to refute the second accusers. Socrates vindicates his innocence by stating that the many have heard what he has taught in public and that many of those that he taught were present in the court that day.
In the Apology, Socrates is on trial for his so called, “corruption of the youth,” because of his philosophies. He is straightforward and confused about the chargers brought up against him. Socrates raises an argument in his defense and believes he has no reason to be sorry. Socrates believes if he is punished and killed, no one would around to enlighten the people. This view draws a connection to the question posed, “Are we
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.
There are other accusations made against Socrates but I believe that I have covered the major ones. I also believe that as far as the mentioned charges are concerned, I have proved that Socrates is indeed innocent. I personally do not know how he was still found guilty, and I regret that Athens lost such a great man
During this essay the trail of Socrates found in the Apology of Plato will be reviewed. What will be looked at during this review is how well Socrates rebuts the charges made against him. We will also talk about if Socrates made the right decision to not escape prison with Crito. Socrates was a very intelligent man; this is why this review is so critical.
Within the duration of this document, I will be discussing the charges laid against Socrates and how he attempted to refute the charges. One of the reasons why Socrates was arrested was because he was being accused of corrupting the minds of the students he taught. I personally feel that it is almost impossible for one person to corrupt the thoughts and feelings of a whole group of people. Improvement comes from the minority and corruption comes from the majority. Socrates is one man (minority).
In the retelling of his trial by his associate, Plato, entitled “The Apology”; Socrates claims in his defense that he only wishes to do good for the polis. I believe that Socrates was innocent of the accusations that were made against him, but he possessed contempt for the court and displayed that in his conceitedness and these actions led to his death.
“Are we to say that we are never intentionally to do wrong, or that in one way we ought not to do wrong, or is doing wrong always evil and dishonorable, as I was just now saying, and as has been already acknowledged by us? (Dover p.49)” Socrates’ standard is that he refuses to see justice as an eye for an eye. He believes that logical arguments and persuasion should be the defense of the accused. Socrates believes that since he cannot convince the people who ruled against him that there is no other option then to pay the sentence that he was
Socrates takes more of the stance of a teacher in Apology. In the Apology Socrates is placed on trial and is attempting to defend his actionshow he is viewed and his teaching practice. Socrates is attempting to teach, or prove, that he is an innocent man who does not deserve punishment for his actions. If Socrates is attempting to teach anything it is that he is an innocent man. Socrates explains that he tries to dismantle the “wise” men of Athens who say they are wise because wisdom comes from accepting your own ignorancethey do not accept their own ignorance. Socrates says that wisdom comes from accepting that you do not know. This is paralleled with Meno’s acceptance of his own ignorance in Meno, which was a moment where he gains wisdom. Socrates is not trying to learn anything in ApologyUnlike in Meno, there is nothing Socrates is trying to learn in the Apology. He asks fewer questions in Apology than he does in Meno because there is not a definite question he is looking for an answer tothe Apology. Perhaps if Socrates was asking more questionsSocrates avoids asking questions because it would take his credibilityquestioning would challenge his credibility away while he was on trial. The jury could not trust a man who is asking questions of his own innocence. The only time in the Apology where he does ask questions is when he attempts discredit one of his accusers, Meletus. Socrates points out Meletus’
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