Moral reasoners should try to be like the Socrates that is depicted in Plato’s Apology. First off, Socrates says that the accusation of him taking money from people in exchange for teaching them philosophy, is not true. So, who doesn’t love free education? Socrates duty is to teach the people who follow him around about his ways. He say’s “the ones who follow me around on their free will the most, are the ones who are better off.”(Plato 4) They often at some points start imitating him and question the people who Socrates is studying. Socrates takes a strong stance when he is called out for corrupting the children. People who are criticizing him (Meletus), have no idea what Socrates teaches them. So Meletus should not be taking shots like
One of the argument found in Plato’s Apology is that during the trial, Socrates had tried to defend himself in front of the judges and spoke, “If I disobeyed the oracle because I was afraid of death, then I should be fancying that I was wise when I was not wise”. This is an example of a Deductive Argument because it has a hypothetical syllogism which consist of having a conditional statement for both its premises in this case. More interestingly in this argument, it consists of pure hypothetical syllogism due to the fact that both statements are conditional. Based on the information given in this form of argument, I believed that this is considered to be an invalid argument because the conclusion does not necessarily follow both premises as
Many people have gone through their lives conforming their beliefs and practices for the sake of fitting in or for the happiness of others, but Socrates was not one of these people. In “The Apology” Plato shows Socrates unwillingness to conform through a speech given by Socrates while on trial for supposedly corrupting the youth of Athens and believing in false gods. Although the title of the dialogue was labeled “The Apology,” Socrates’ speech was anything but that, it was a defense of himself and his content along his philosophical journey. At no time during the trial was Socrates willing to change his ways in order to avoid punishment, two reasons being his loyalty to his God and his philosophical way of life.
Plato’s "Apology" gives the substance of the defense made by Socrates to the Athenians at his trial. Meletus, Anytus and Lyncon brought Socrates to court on charges of corrupting the morals of the youth, leading the youth away from the principals of democracy, neglecting the Gods of the State and introducing new divinities.
Strepsiades says, “It is said that they have two speeches, the stronger, whatever it may be, and the weaker. One of these speeches, the weaker, wins, they say, although it speaks the more unjust things” (Aristophanes, 111-115). This is very similar to the first charge brought against him in The Apology, for challenging the orthodox beliefs and being “a thinker on things aloft, who has investigated all things under earth, and who makes the weaker speech the stronger” (Plato, 18b). All of Athens held the belief that Socrates questioned things that should not be questioned. But both Socrates and Aristophanes know that a philosopher questions everything, from the mundane to the
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.
Many judges and civilians questioned the intentions of Socrates. They believed he was corrupting their youth and making them go against the beliefs they had been taught by the law, their state and their parents. The intent of questioning and cross-examination, which Socrates often did, was not to make people feel inferior but to make them understand the shallowness of their knowledge. Being skilled in one area, Socrates believed, does not make you wise in all tings. You must be willing to explore and desire a deeper understanding of all things. Socrates wanted Meletus to understand that he was not trying to corrupt the youth or make them deny the gods of the state, but rather, “believe in divine and spiritual agencies” that encourage virtue and doing good to all men. Socrates believed that one should not fear death and punishment if they are doing what they believe to be good, and a person cannot make themselves better by accusing, punishing, or killing a person who questions their knowledge and beliefs. They only way to improve ourselves is by taking what our accusers say about us and digging into the meaning of it. By doing this we can search for understanding and try to make ourselves better. As Socrates says, “the life which is unexamined is not worth living.”
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
In Plato’s Apology it seems that overall Socrates did an effective job using the 3 acts of the mind. The three acts of the mind are: Understanding, Judgment, and Reasoning. These acts are stragically used to rebut the charges made against him during trial. The two charges that are formed against Socrates are corrupting the youth and not believing in the gods. The first act of the mind that we will be looking at is, understanding. The question that needs to be asked is what does corruption mean? The accuser believe that Socrates in corrupting the minds of the children by introducing new concepts. Socrates is trying to teach and involve the minds of the youth by getting them to ask question. It is very important that people are always asking questions about why things are. The next question that needs to be address is what does not believe in the gods mean? Socrates believes in God but that is one god that rules the world, not multiple gods who together rule. They are mad that he has “created” his own god.
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.
In Plato’s Apology, when Socrates is pleading his defence, he makes a good argument against the charges of corrupting the youth of Athens. This is evident when he states that, firstly, Meletus, the man who is trying to get Socrates executed, has never cared about the youth of Athens and has no real knowledge on the subject. Secondly, Socrates states that if he was in some way corrupting the youth, then he was doing it unintentionally or unwillingly, in which case he was brought to court for no reason. Finally, Socrates brings to light the fact that Meletus doesn’t have a single witness to attest to Socrates’ corruption. This is how Socrates proves his argument that he isn’t responsible for corrupting the youth of Athens.
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."
In any case of law, when considering truth and justice, one must first look at the validity of the court and the system itself. In Socrates' case, the situation is no different. One may be said to be guilty or innocent of any crime, but guilt or innocence is only as valid as the court it is subjected to. Therefore, in considering whether Socrates is guilty or not, it must be kept in mind the norms and standards of Athens at that time, and the validity of his accusers and the crimes he allegedly committed. Is Socrates guilty or innocent of his accusations?
Socrates’s apology displays his deep knowledge in philosophy as the Delphic Oracle stated ”there is no person living wiser than Socrates”. The greatest example of Socrates trial and death validates the close relationship between his character and philosophy. He believed that philosophy should triumph in practical results for the greater well being of society. Socrates attempted to establish an ethical system based on human reason rather than theological teaching. He pointed out that human choice was driven by the desire for happiness, and infinite wisdom comes from knowing oneself. The more a person knows something the greater his or her ability to reason and to make choices that will bring true happiness.
According to Aristotle, a virtue is a state that makes something good, and in order for something to be good, it must fulfill its function well. The proper function of a human soul is to reason well. Aristotle says that there are two parts of the soul that correspond to different types of virtues: the appetitive part of the soul involves character virtues, while the rational part involves intellectual virtues. The character virtues allow one to deliberate and find the “golden mean” in a specific situation, while the intellectual virtues allow one to contemplate and seek the truth. A virtuous person is someone who maintains an appropriate balance of these two parts of the soul, which allows them to reason well in different types of situations.
Justice is generally regarded as an important virtue. It is seen as the hallmark of a truly free and fair society, as well as one with a good sense of morality. The average person might see justice as a state where crime is not prevalent, and where individuals are fair and understanding towards one another. However, in order to reach a working definition for justice, one must consider its value and understand the components that make up a greater virtue. Throughout The Apology and Republic, Plato uses Socrates as a mouthpiece, attempting to explore find the true meaning of justice. Throughout The Apology, Socrates dispels commonly held views on the nature of justice and discusses how individuals