Oedipus the king by Sophocles and Crito by Plato both have an active indication of the concept of legitimation and each one presents variations in using the authority through the rational and the traditional forms of legitimation. However, there was a minor concern about the charismatic legitimation in both of them. Traditional legitimation was shown in Oedipus the king by the Delphic oracle and the divine intervention. Also, it presented in Crito by Socrates believes in the vision of his delay death. However, rational legitimation was clarified in the logical way which Oedipus uses to find the killer of Laius. Crito used reasons to persuade Socrates to smuggle from the prison like: Socrates responsibilities towards his sons, how Socrates death will have negative impacts on his friends and how Socrates has been unjustly sentenced. In addition, the social contract with Athenians was an argument used by Socrates to show why he should stay in prison.
Traditional legitimacy is addressed in different avenues in Oedipus the king. Perhaps the most significant avenue is the underlying theme of divine intervention. The first indication of the Gods role in the play is the prophecy of the oracle, Oedipus fate was related to the oracle. Oedipus was well known of the ancient Greek believes that god can see the future and some people can access this information. Therefore, when a plague strike the city Oedipus act as traditional leader and sent Creon to Delphi-Apollo the prophet oracle to know what he can do to save the city. The Delphic oracle showed that the problem is because a religious pollution, the murder of the king Laius has been not caught yet. Oedipus believed that god is telling the truth therefore he sent for the blind prophet T...
... middle of paper ...
... chosen by divine forces to play their role they did. Socrates was accused of corrupting the youth which means that he has people who follow him. Also he has an ironic characteristic which made him does not care if they kill him or know. On the other hand Oedipus was the land avenger because he saved the city from the sphinx people believed in his power and they follow him as a saviour for the city.
In conclusion, traditional legitimation was shown in both Oedipus the king and Crito by believing in the divine intervention. Socrates persuades Crito that he should stay in prison and act justly towards the laws of his city by using different arguments like the social contract that he has with the Athenians and being outlaw and unwelcome in any other city. So both Socrates and Oedipus were trying to use reasons instead of traditional authority to justify their action.
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.
In Plato’s account of Socrates’s trial, the Apology, Socrates asserts that “it is the greatest good for a man to discuss virtue every day … for the unexamined life is not worth living” (Apology, 38a). By this he means that in order to go through life properly, and to experience the greatest satisfaction, a person must devote serious thought to how they live their life and whether they are truly acting and have acted with virtue. In Sophocles’s Oedipus Cycle, the protagonist and (initially) king of Thebes, Oedipus, learns of horrors he took part in long ago, namely patricide and incest, which come back to haunt him as he realizes their nature — or rather, as he examines them. Although one assessment of the circumstances might lead one to believe that Oedipus’s
Socrates was a great Philosopher and thinker who were able to take his knowledge to greater heights from Ancient Athens. Due to Socrates great thinking and open-mindedness he was accused by many but persecuted with two charges, which were brought against him. In Plato’s Euthyphro, Socrates challenged Euthyphro for a solid definition of ‘what is piety’. In Apology Plato goes on to state the charges which had been set against Socrates, but while doing so Plato juggles the readers mind whether Socrates was guilty of any of these charges. Plato brings the reader to and argument between Socrates and Crito in the Crito dialogues. This argument is to determine whether Socrates should run away or face the death penalty/during the argument Socrates
However, he may also have been deciding to do this through passion. His need for his land to be perfectly normal might have prompted this immediate decision. Reason also occurs through the character of Oedipus himself. He has a heroic confidence in his own abilities, and he has good reason for such confidence, both from his own sense of past achievements and from the very high regard everyone has of those achievements. He is conscious of himself as 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.
Plato was the author of the Apology of Socrates, which was one of the four major works of ancient Greek literature. Though the title was the Apology of Socrates, the text referred to the defense speeches of Socrates against the Athenian council. At the end, Socrates was found to be guilty and was sentenced to death. However, the Athenian council was not acting justly because Socrates did nothing wrong as he had successfully developed a reasonable logic against the charges. I will address this notion through the analysis of the arguments and the logic that Socrates used to conduct his defense.
In the dialogue, Crito, Socrates justified his decision to accept his death penalty. His decision was praised as principled and just. However, such a view was one of the greatest myths in the history of philosophy. Contrary to the accepted ideas, I wish to show that Socrates’ argument was erroneous, the crucial error being his failure to distinguish between substantial and procedural justice. In fact, the whole of the Crito refers to some deeper problems of the philosophy of law and morality.
As tragic hero Oedipus displays all of the usual canon; power, arrogance, and pride. Oedipus manifests himself in a position of confidence, which he derives from his success at solving the riddle of the Sphinx and marrying a queen.“It was you who came / and released Cadmus’ Town from the tribute / we paid to the cruel songstress…” (Sophocles, 33-35) , “CREON: Then tell me this - / are you not married to my sister?” (Sophocles, 696-697). In turn, it also enabled him to make rash decisions, such as slaying his father, without personal recompense. “I was to slay my father. And he dies, / And the grave hide...
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.
In the Apology, Socrates is going through the trial and explaining to the people of the court how justice should prevail, but if it does not, the blood that is shed from his body, will be blood on their hands. In Gorgias, we gather a better understanding of why Socrates thinks the way he does, and why he believes justice will always prevail, and that it is always better to accept your destiny than to run from it. Crito fits in with his claims in the Apology and Gorgias within the nature of his punishement and why he should be just, is because Socrates believes what goes around comes around. If he is to run from something, it will only come back and bite him later on. In other words, the law of karma comes in these plays, this universal law states, nothing happens by chance. Every action has a reaction or consequence and as the Bible states, we must “reap what we have
In Oedipus the King, a plague has fallen upon the city of Thebes. Forced to take action Oedipus sends Creon to the oracle in Delphi to rid the city of this plague. Creon returns with the message, the plague will end when the murderer of Laius, the former king of Thebes, is caught and expelled; the murderer is within the city. Tiresias tells Oedipus that he is the murderer. Oedipus accuses both Creon and Tiresias of a conspiracy against the king; he charges the prophet with insanity and threatens to put Creon to death. In the end it turns out that Oedipus is the murderer, of Laius, his father, and is sleeping with his mother. Oedipus’s hubris behavior is seen when he refuses to accept his fate. His ignorance to see the truth leaves him blind, and unable to see the error of his ways. Oedipus’s blindness and corruption is clear to everyone except him. Creon exhibits similar hubris behavior in almost parallel circumstances. Creon believes his law goes above the law of God, which entitles everyone to a formal burial. Creon’s hubris behavior and arrogance also leads to his downfall, where everyone close to him has taken their own...
In Ancient Greece the existence of gods and fate prevailed. In the Greek tragedy King Oedipus by the playwright Sophocles these topics are heavily involved. We receive a clear insight into their roles in the play such as they both control man's actions and that challenging their authority leads to a fall.
Even though Oedipus may be the hero, he is also selfish and ruthless. One example of his ruthlessness is when he meets Laius at the place where the three roads meet. Instead of letting the older man pass, he makes a scene, why should he be the one to move? He is royalty. He believes that he should move for no man. He is also selfish in the fact that when Teresias enters and gives Oedipus the clues that tell him that he has killed Laius, he refuses to believe him, to the point of insulting him, and kicking him out.
The myth of Oedipus is one of a man brought down by forces aligning against him. Over the years, different playwrights have interpreted his character in various fashions. In Sophocles’ Oedipus the King, Oedipus is a man who is blind to the path on which his questions take him and exemplifies the typical tyrannical leader in ancient times; in Senaca’s Oedipus, it is the fear of his questions that give Oedipus a greater depth of character, a depth he must overcome if he is to survive his ordeal.
In the tragic play, Oedipus Rex, the Gods and religion greatly influence the social structure which in turn has a profound effect upon how the events unfold. Oedipus is the head of the state. There is a direct parallel in the demise of his household and city state which eventually comes to a full circle to destroy him. Even though Oedipus is praised by his people for being a responsible and honest king, he possesses a major character flaw in his attitude towards the gods which causes the tragic torture he faces in the end. Over the duration of the play, there is a strong sense of contamination towards the state, because it is facing a time of plague, and towards the leader Oedipus, because he is unknowingly in a relationship with his own mother. The cleansing of the state can only occur if the ruler, Oedipus, and his ignorant ways are put to rest. The state and the household are directly linked to Oedipus. His incestuous ways are the outcome of anger from the gods for being intelligent and because the leader of the state is plagued with such a flaw the state must suffer for the wronging of the leader. This sense of contamination ultimately leads the gods to cleanse the state, household, and Oedipus by revealing the flaw to everyone and Oedipus at the same time.