Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Socrates passage from the apology
Socrates passage from the apology
Socrates passage from the apology
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Socrates passage from the apology
“That virtue does not come from wealth, but that wealth, and every other good thing which men have, whether in public or in private, comes from a virtue” to attempt to interpret this quote from Socrates we must first look at what is a virtue. A virtue is defined as a behavior showing high moral standards. In this quote he claims that a virtue or high moral standards doesn't come from worldly things but rather possessing high morals or virtue results in wealth and every other good thing which men have.
I personally agree with the first portion of this quote in the fact that wealth and worldly things alone do not result in a person having qualities of virtue. However, the second part of this quote is far from factual. There are many individuals who rise to success without any sound moral beliefs. As
…show more content…
well as, there are many people who have incredible moral attributes that will never step into the the world of wealth. While Socrates is on trial he says to the Athenians “Be sure that if you put me to death, who am what I have told you that I am, you will do yourselves more harm than me.” I think he says this as a plea for his life as well as he realizes he has much to offer the world and he cannot give the world the knowledge if he's dead.
I think a majority of deaths are a tragedy and we as humans don't reserve the right to take other peoples life even when we feel dignified to. I also agree with Socrates that by killing him they would do more harm to themselves than they would do to Socrates.
Socrates goes on to compare himself to a gadfly, when he does this he is to the state like a fly to a sluggish horse. In the way that when a fly continually bothers the horse it becomes aroused and is forced to do something about it. In my life my cousin is my own personal gadfly that when something needs to be done she makes sure that it gets done before I can focus my attention to something else.
One modern day gadfly to society is Steven Colbert. On his show, The Colbert Report, he continually forces people to question their political views by probing at particular holes in
beliefs. I absolutely think Socrates views are relevant today we can make many comparisons between modern day United states and the Athens. In our society wealth, fame, and prestige have become so much more valued than wisdom or truth. Our morals continue to decline and improvement of the soul has been placed on the back burner and replaced with many world things. In modern America the pinnacle of success is not being the smartest, kindest, or most wise but rather the richest, prettiest, most famous. The new American dream we see has shifted to more interest in pop culture in the aspects of money and fame than it has ever before. Most of the individuals that have so called made it, have had very poor ethics promoting sex, drugs, and violence. Very few people who are successful by the new social norm for what we consider success are encouraging people to improve their souls. For my values personally I hold a high value on material things which is problematic within these views. However, I am not willing to sacrifice my other core values in order to obtain the things I would like. I often find my self seeking knowledge, truth, and constantly trying to purify my soul to seek the right things to do in all circumstances.
Although Socrates and Pericles are in different situations while giving their speeches, they both talk about things that let you, as the reader, see their views on certain points. One of the key points they agree upon is death.
In today’s society, no man can be sentence to die because he speaks out his mind, everyone is entitle to freedom of speech. If Socrates were alive today, he would have being able to express his mind with out being sentence to die.
Yes, Socrates did not kill anyone, but he was an innocent man who was put to death. This brings up the topic about whether capital punishment is the right form of retaliation. Our justice system was originally supposed to be about rehabilitation, not retribution. In other words, non-violent criminals should not only spend time behind bars, but get reformed as well, so that when they do leave they can live a productive life free of crime. The same goes for people who are violent criminals, as long as it did not involve murder. Murderers on the other hand, should spend their entire life in jail but not on death row, primarily because it is not 100 percent guarantee that the person that has been convicted is guilty. According to a study “at least 4.1% of all defendants sentenced to death in the US in the modern era are innocent.” (Guardian) The results are shocking because it proves how flawed the criminal justice system can get. The death plenty was immoral then, when Socrates was alive, and it is immoral now due to the potential of having to come across the mistake of taking an innocence’s life
According to Pierre Hadot, “Thus philosophy was a way of life, both in its exercise and effort to achieve wisdom, and its goal, wisdom itself. For real wisdom does not merely cause us to know: it makes us “be” in a different way” ( Pierre 265) This explanation of a philosophical way of life is in all ways the definition of Socrates’ life. Socrates made his way through his entire life living in this way, seeking out wisdom, seeking out answers and never once got in trouble with the court until the age of seventy years old. He believed that by telling people about ignorance and wisdom, that he was only doing so for the good of the people. Socrates even goes as far as saying, “I am that Gadfly which God has attached to the state, and all day long and in all places am always fastening upon you, arousing and persuading and reproaching you”(Plato 9). Socrates believes that he was sent from God to show people a different way of life, a life of questioning and reason to which he should teach to all people. When asked if he was ashamed of a course of life of which would likely bring him to an untimely end Socrates says, “you are mistaken: a man who is good for anything ought not to calculate the chance of living or dying; he ought only to consider whether in doing anything he is doing right or wrong” (Plato 7).
He openly questions the beliefs of men held in high esteem in Athens, and thus has made him a controversial figure. For this very reason, he was indicted. Socrates responds, claiming “You are wrong sir, if you should think that a man who is any good at all should take into account the risk of life or death…”. A good man does not consider his physical well being when taking action, rather he looks “whether what he does is right or wrong, whether he is acting like a good or bad man” (28c). Socrates distinctly uses the word “acting” instead of “being”. What he has essentially said is that good men only act like good men. Which is to say, that men only aim to be good. Additionally, a man’s life is not what matters, rather his honor, or the health of his soul is what matters. Actions guided by the idea of a “good man” determine a man’s worth. I find this is beautifully reflected in Aristotle 's divisions of the soul. Just as all “good” men aim to act like good men, Aristotle theorized that all activities of men are aimed at a type of good
He considered himself a blessing to society. Socrates refers himself as a gadfly because he is concerned for the society virtue. He believes there will never be a man like him and that it will causes more harm for the city.
The wise and inquisitive Socrates was both a philosopher and a martyr, not just in his words but in his actions as well. Socrates was so adamant about his principles that he wouldn’t deny them to save his own life. A lesser man left in his shoes would have done anything to stop the fate that he faced. Socrates practiced what he preached through and through and for the most part only taught good morals.
Virtue is very tough to define, as evidenced in the difficulty that Socrates, Nicias, and Laches have with trying to define both courage and virtue. In Socrates’ arguments with Nicias, he does seem to indicate that Nicias stumbled into a possible definition of virtue. Socrates says in regards to what Nicias thought was that, “Courage is the knowledge not just of the fearful and the hopeful, but in your [Nicias’] opinion, it would be the knowledge of practically all goods and evils put together” (Laches and Charmides, 199D). However, after Nicias agrees that this is not the definition of courage that Socrates and Nicias are searching for, Socrates asks if “[Does] a man with this kind of knowledge seem to depart from virtue in any respect” (Laches and Charmides, 199D)? The simple answer to this question is no. The definition that was suggested by Socrates for the definition of courage has become the definition of virtue. “Then the thing you are now talking about, Nicias, would seem not be a part of virtue but rather virtue entire” (Laches and Charmides, 199E). To summarize, for a person to be virtuous, he or she must have knowledge of all goods and evils...
The ancient words of Socrates have laid the foundation for many modern-day ideals, laws, and forms of government. However, though he has many wise words to offer, there appear to be fundamental inconsistencies between some of his discussions and allegories. The words of Socrates in the Symposium and Republic were written by his mentee, Plato, who uses Socrates’ persona to reflect his own thoughts (though, not necessarily all of his proper beliefs). Therefore, the apparent inconsistencies between Plato’s works may be reconciled when the disposition of Socrates in these texts is considered: he is a character. Socrates and other characters are purely vehicles of Plato’s thought-provoking persuasion. In the Symposium, the interlocutors give praise to everything good about desire; the nature and purpose of love (eros) is explored and, in the end, a broader concept of desire is reached. In the Republic, however, justice (dikaiosune) and reason are the main objectives while desire appears to be something that should be suppressed in a just man. Both dialogues aim to discover the nature of these concepts, their link to Virtue, and man’s relationship to the good and the beautiful. I will argue that the attitudes of these characters may seem to vary between dialogues, but the overall message of the pieces remains consistent and, moreover, that they supplement one another.
Aristotle believes that happiness is the ultimate goal in life. You can’t reach happiness unless you work hard and become successful. That is where virtue comes into play. A human’s function is to engage in “an activity of the soul which is in accordance with virtue” and which “is in conformity with reason” (page 76, Palmer). The two kinds of virtue are intellectual and moral. Our virtues are what make us all individual and all different. Intellectual virtues are what we are born with and what we learn. It is our nature as humans and what we have inherited that makes desire to learn. As humans, we develop wisdom to help guide us to a good life. With the intellectual virtue you develop two different kinds of wisdom: practical and philosophical. Practical wisdom is your rational actions. The highest virtue is philosophical wisdom, which is scientific, disinterested, and contemplative. Moral virtues are what we learn from imitation, practice and our habits we developed. Moral virtues are what we have learned from our society. “Neither by nature, then, nor contrary to nature do the virtues arise in us; rather we are adapted by nature to receive them, and are made perfect by habit” (page 223, Mayfield). This quote is explaining how you need both the intellectual virtue (nature) and the moral virtue (habit).
He talks about virtue like it is the result of living “The Good Life.” He says, “For I do nothing but go about persuading you all, old and young alike, not to take thought for your persons and your properties, but first and chiefly to care about the greatest improvement of the soul” (Slayer). In brief, Socrates is saying that in order to have true “virtue” one needs to be consider where they are in the standards of morality, rather than the standards of material gain (Slayer). Additionally, Socrates also argues, “I tell you that virtue is not given by money, but that from virtue come money and every other good of man, public as well as private.” He is basically saying that anything worth obtaining in the world is only worth obtaining justly because without “virtue” one will have nothing of value
Socrates then introduces the idea that, since they have come to understand these truths and amassed great amounts of knowledge, the philosopher is humble, and is humbled by the enormity of the truths and knowledge. This knowledge and these truths also make the philosopher courageous as he no longer fears his death. The philosopher is also considered the optimal leader due to his disregard for wealth and material goods, Socrates clarifies that since his energy and desire are all concentrated on knowledge and truth his appetite will mimic that of a stream, with his mind flowing in the direction of “learning and everything like it” (485d) Socrates says that, assuming he is a “true philosopher, a genuine lover of wisdom, and not a pretend lover of wisdom” (485e) that the pleasures of the mind will be more than enough for
In the passage Socrates refers to himself as a gadfly and he referred to the people of Athens to a sluggish horse. A gadfly is defined as a fly that bites and annoys other animals, in which Socrates is the fly and the people of Athens is the horse. In this case Socrates annoys people with criticism and ideas by constantly questioning them and making them uncomfortable questioning if they are in fact wise.
From this I can say that virtue is knowledge and knowledge comes from teaching, virtue comes from teaching, because Socrates says “if it is of one kind it can be taught; if it is of a different kind, it cannot.” And both Socrates and Meno agree on this. In the second part (Meno, 79-80,87c-d), Socrates asks “do we say that virtue is itself something good, and will this hypothesis stand firm for us, that it is something good?” which means virtue is good. In addition, Socrates suggests “if there is nothing good that knowledge does not encompass”, at this point, I argue Socrates means virtue is knowledge because “we would be right to suspect that it is a kind of knowledge.” In other words, because virtue is good and knowledge covers everything which is good, thus, knowledge covers virtue.... ...
Philosophy can be defined as the pursuit of wisdom or the love of knowledge. Socrates, as one of the most well-known of the early philosophers, epitomizes the idea of a pursuer of wisdom as he travels about Athens searching for the true meaning of the word. Throughout Plato’s early writings, he and Socrates search for meanings of previously undefined concepts, such as truth, wisdom, and beauty. As Socrates is often used as a mouthpiece for Plato’s ideas about the world, one cannot be sure that they had the same agenda, but it seems as though they would both agree that dialogue was the best way to go about obtaining the definitions they sought. If two people begin on common ground in a conversation, as Socrates often tries to do, they are far more likely to be able to civilly come to a conclusion about a particular topic, or at least further their original concept.