Socrates was a well-known philosopher in Ancient Greek who was named the father of Western philosophy. Yet, the counselors and state jurors did not believe that Socrates was the knowledgeable man that the city of Athens claims that he is. Therefore, the state accused Socrates for depraving the youth of Athens, as well as creating new gods that were not recognized by the state. In the Apology, one can understand that it was not much of an apology or an acknowledgment of offense. Later on, Socrates is sentenced to death and later writes Crito, where his friend Crito endeavors to convince Socrates to escape his jail cell. Yet, Socrates’ actions in Crito are not so consistent with the dialogue that is found in the Apology. In the Apology Socrates …show more content…
For example, whenever he exchanged answers with The Laws it was an “you’re wrong,” where as it when it came to Critos it was an, “I can’t.” Socrates demonstrates that the conversation that each situation differed was that one was with an audience he could trust and one that he could not. Socrates had demonstrated The Laws that were unjust and had to come up with some “smart” way to get him behind bars because he recognized that both sides knew nothing, including him. He explains to them that their wisdom should be classified more as ignorance because all that Socrates has ever tried to do was to help the citizens of Athens. His goal was to influence the community on how one can live a more valuable life by listening to the truth rather than falsely accusations stated by the …show more content…
Because even though each action action he took predicted his future, he took into consideration everything that would happen after he opens his mouth. Socrates said, “An unexamined life is not worth living.” And even though the result came down to Socrates being placed onto death row, he knew that everything that had occurred and that will happen was because God had planned it. He chose to live a life in which was just and righteous all the way to the end. Socrates understood that the only truth and wisdom could only come from one person and that was God. As stated before, Socrates explained that human wisdom was worth nothing and the wisest of all was God. That God was before all and knew everything before anything was created at all. And that all wisdom rebounds back to him. “ With God is wisdom and might; He hath counsel and understanding. ” ( American Standard Version, Job
Throughout the readings of The Apology of Socrates and Crito I have found that Socrates was not a normal philosopher. It is the philosopher's intention to question everything, but Socrates' approach was different then most other philosophers. From one side of the road, Socrates can be seen as an insensitive, arrogant man. He did indeed undermine the laws so they fit his ideals, leave his family, and disregard the people's values. On the other side he can be seen as an ingenious man who questioned what many thought was the unquestionable. As he can be criticized for disregarding the many's ideals he can also be applauded for rising above the daily ways of popular thought. He questioned the laws that he thought were wrong and, to his death, never backed down in what he believed in. People may see that as stupidity or as heroism, the beauty of it is that either way people saw it, Socrates wouldn't care.
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.
Plato’s The Apology is a hand-written recording of Socrates’ speech made at the trial in which he is charged with not recognizing the “gods” that are recognized by the state. Therefore, he is corrupting the youth of Athens. Socrates' speech, however, does not really mean an "apology" in terms of the modern language. The name “Apology” is a Greek word for "apologia," which means “defense”. And so in The Apology, Socrates attempts to defend himself and certainly did not mean to apologize for what he believes.
Socrates argues in the Crito that he shouldn't escape his death sentence because it isn't just. Crito is distressed by Socrates reasoning and wishes to convince him to escape since Crito and friends can provide the ransom the warden demands. If not for himself, Socrates should escape for the sake of his friends, sons, and those who benefit from his teaching. Socrates and Crito's argument proceeds from this point.
In reply to the first charge against him, Socrates effectively recounted the reason that he had been privately questioning Athenians and claiming that some of their personal beliefs had been ill-founded. The affidavit read, “Socrates is an evil-doer, and a curious person, who searches into things under the earth and in heaven, and he makes the worse appear the better cause; and he teaches the aforesaid doctrines to others.” (Plato, 2) The abstractness of that accusation made it an odd one to refute, so Socrates attempted to do so by explaining how he became unpopular with his accusers.
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.
Essay: A Discussion on whether or not I believe that Socrates’ views in the Crito contradict his views expressed in the Apology.
The Apology is Socrates' defense at his trial. As the dialogue begins, Socrates notes that his accusers have cautioned the jury against Socrates' eloquence, according to Socrates, the difference between him and his accusers is that Socrates speaks the truth. Socrates distinguished two groups of accusers: the earlier and the later accusers. The earlier group is the hardest to defend against, since they do not appear in court. He is all so accused of being a Sophist: that he is a teacher and takes money for his teaching. He attempts to explain why he has attracted such a reputation. The oracle was asked if anyone was wiser than Socrates was. The answer was no, there was no man wiser. Socrates cannot believe this oracle, so he sets out to disprove it by finding someone who is wiser. He goes to a politician, who is thought wise by him self and others. Socrates does not think this man to be wise and tells him so. As a consequence, the politician hated Socrates, as did others who heard the questioning. "I am better off, because while he knows nothing but thinks that he knows, I neither know nor think that I know" (Socrates). He questioned politicians, poets, and artisans. He finds that the poets do not write from wisdom, but by genius and inspiration. Meletus charges Socrates with being "a doer of evil, and corrupter of the youth, and he does not believe in the gods of the State, and has other new divinities of his own."
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. In Plato’s Apology, it seems that overall Socrates did an effective job using the 3 acts of the mind.
This is because the Oracle at Delphi said that no one was wiser than Socrates. He initially does not agree with the Oracles’ statement and enters on a quest to search for someone whom can prove to be much wiser than himself. Through this process he then realizes that the Oracle’s statement was actually correct, because he found in every person that they believed to know about things in which they did not. For example, Meno believed that he knew about virtue when in fact he did not. This ended up being the situation for everyone that Socrates encountered, and due to this Socrates realized that he was the wisest because he did not pretend to know about things in which he did
John M. Cooper, in the book, “Plato Five Dialogues Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Meno, Phaedo,” explains different aspects of Socrates’ life. As a natural philosopher, Socrates is known to never really offer a definition but to object a question. Plato (in his Five Dialogues of the wise teacher Socrates) mentions that The Apology is an interpretation of the speech Socrates makes at the trial in which he is accused with denying gods accepted by the state, discovering new gods, and un-dignifying the youth of Athens. Meanwhile, Socrates' speech is clarified as to not have been an actual apology. The name of the dialogue originates from the Greek "apologia," which interprets as a defense, or a speech made in defense. Hence, in The Apology, Socrates
In the “normal” world many individuals would not use a trial to reaffirm their ideals or philosophy particularly if they life was on the line. In that analysis, I disagree with you because even that is seems a wrongful action for the “normal” world it was a normal behavior that goes in accordance with who was Socrates and what his philosophical ideas where. Socrates Apology was more than a reaffirmation of Socrates believes and views in my opinion it was an alibi to prove his innocence. In general, Socrates actions should be an inspiration to fight for what is Good and to him that was Virtue. For than we can say that Socrates was defending his
Socrates on the other hand, was self thought and believed that he was wise enough to know that he could be ignorant at times. Unlike the sophists, he was not rich and did not ask for fines to teach people of this wisdom he had learnt. He was an orator, a great orator at that but according to the dialogue in Plato’s Apology (1.17c) he was not the kind of man who would talk in a formal tone as he was used to talking in common places. Socrates also saw himself as a god sent to open the eyes of the people to see what they had not learned.
Interestingly about the work of Socrates is that its not known very well, since nothing was recorded during his time. Everything that we know about Socrates has come through the writings of his greatest pupil, Plato. Socrates was a man that revolutionized philosophy and how to approach his surroundings. One of Socrates greatest findings as a philosopher was that he admitted that he knew nothing, which to others, specifically the Delphic Oracle led them to believe that there were none wiser than Socrates. Socrates techniques as a philosopher came about with his abilities to question others. His line of questioning, to see why everything had a purpose drew a crowd of younger people, which leads us to The Republic, where Socrates encounters some questions for him.
Socrates’ life goal and God-calling was “searching into himself and other men.” (Plato, trans. 1871) Essentially, this means pondering why, when, where, what, and how of the world, yourself, others, and spirituality. Every question one asks defines a person’s worldview and how he interprets the universe in which he lives. To live the examined life is accepting the existence of unanswered questions that humans must contemplate in order to understand the world. Socrates compares himself to a gadfly waking people from their sleep (Plato, trans. 1871). Many people choose to live the unexamined life because of the intensity of the intellectuality. Taking on these “big” questions is not a simple task (Dean, 2014). It takes time and thought to formulate cohesive observations that work together to create a worldview. Everyone has a worldview whether or not they can grasp and interpret the necessary questions. However, those who go the extra mile to examine all aspects of themselves, the world, humanity, and God or spiritual beings, have a greater understanding of who they are and what they believe. Accept the