1. Socrates was charged and eventually put to death for corrupting the youth. What was his defense of his actions? Do you think that his defense of his actions was adequate? (In other words, had you been on the jury, would you have voted in favor of Socrates or against him?) Defend your position. Socrates was told by the oracle that no man is wiser than him, as a result, he went around searching for someone who confronts the oracle 's logic. Unfortunately, those he thought possessed a greater wisdom were not in fact wise and he informed them of this. He gained many enemies in the process; however, somewhere along the line he realised that what God was telling him was "The wisest man is the one who, like Socrates, knows that his wisdom …show more content…
I say this because If I were to place myself in that time period, I, like others would have felt as though Socrates was going against all the morals and beliefs society put in place. People of that time had very strict ideals of God and what he expected of them, so it is understandable why they had such negative feeling towards the one man who challenged those ideals. If someone were to tell me everything that I believe and know is false, and that I am not wise I wouldn 't take it so well neither. However on the contrary, with consideration of todays logic, it is quite absurd to execute someone simply because they possess different views from you. In todays society there exists the freedom of expression and religion and in Socrates defense, he did nothing but express himself in a society not structured to openly receive his reservations. However if I do not pose certain questions, know that I have not been listening in class. What proof does Socrates have to make the judgment that someone is wise or not? What exactly is wisdom? And how do we know such a thing …show more content…
In my opinion, A Priori is obvious it doesn 't need much experiment or evaluation, for example "the green grass is green". A Posterior on the other hand is more of a proven fact, for example "I was born in 1997". I strongly believe that A posteriori is more superior because it is a fact proven by science and or personal experience, I know that Africa is hot because I lived there for 3 years that is my experience. It also lies on the equator and contains only two seasons; dry and rainy season which has been proven by science. As for A Priori how do I know that the green grass is really green? How do I know it is really green? What if I see Blue? A priori rests on no evidence, just insight and is gained through deduction with no empirical
In Athens, there were two wise men named Socrates and Pericles. In the short story "Plato's Apology", Socrates is on trial, and is speaking before his peers so that he may be judged. In "Pericles's Funeral Oration", Pericles himself is giving a speech at a funeral on behalf of the fallen soldiers of Athens. In both speeches, Socrates and Pericles believe it will be hard to talk about the subject because the people listening might not believe what they say to be the truth or the whole truth. Both men were considered wise, but Socrates believed men were not virtuos, and Pericles believed that man does strive to become virtous. I believe that Socrates's arguments are a rebuttal to Pericles's Funeral Oration, and although they are both wise, only Socrates has true wisdom.
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. (37) The problem is that many of the citizens of Athens who wanted Socrates dead, lacked that emotional intelligence and thought highly of themselves. So of course they become defensive when Socrates sheds light on the idea that they may be wrong. As someone who cared most about the improvement of the soul, Socrates would have made a constructive role model to the criminals of Athens, as he would go on saying, “virtue is not given by money, but that from virtue comes money and every other good of man…”(35) Socrates was able to benefit everyone alike as he had human wisdom- something that all the Athenians could relate
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. Under trial for corrupting youth and not worshiping the Gods in Athens, Socrates takes an attitude that many might interpret as pompous during his trial. Rather than apologise, as Plato’s dialogue title Apology suggests, Socrates explains why he is right and those who accused him are mistaken. He speaks in a plain manner, as if the jury is just another of his followers. Socrates first cites the profit at Delphi for why he behaves in ways that lead to him being under scrutiny of the law. He explains that his friend, Chaerephon, went to ask the oracle if anyone is wiser than Socrates and the oracle responded no (21a). Socrates then explains his interpretation of this being that he is wise in knowing that he does not know certain things, where
Why was Socrates put on trial? Clearly, from Plato’s Apology, there were two misdeeds charged upon him: impiety and corrupting the youth. But was the charge really valid and convincing? Absolutely ...
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.
Socrates defense at his trial was not strong enough to convince the Athenians to set him free of all charges. He was not prepared properly for his defense; yet, he managed to convince a large majority of the judges to find him not guilty of charges, but not enough to send him free.
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.
There are times in every mans life where our actions and beliefs collide—these collisions are known as contradictions. There are endless instances in which we are so determined to make a point that we resort to using absurd overstatements, demeaning language, and false accusations in our arguments. This tendency to contradict ourselves often questions our character and morals. Similarly, in The Trial of Socrates (Plato’s Apology), Meletus’ fallacies in reason and his eventual mistake of contradicting himself will clear the accusations placed on Socrates. In this paper, I will argue that Socrates is not guilty of corrupting the youth with the idea of not believing in the Gods but of teaching the youth to think for themselves by looking to new divinities.
Living in a democracy, everyone is exposed through television and other various forms of media everyday to numerous trials by jury. Usually they are rarely given a second thought, but every once in a while along comes a specific trial which captures the attention of the entire country. This goes the same for trials throughout centuries in our past. Although they did not have the same forms of media as in this, modern era, there were still specific trials in which everyone knew about. One trial that stands out is the one against the great philosopher Socrates. Accused of corrupting the youth, being an atheist, and believing in other gods, Socrates faced trial by jury. The early forms of democracy were not as sophisticated and complex as they are now. The outcome of the trial was that Socrates was found guilty and sentenced to be put to death by hemlock poisoning. The question is whether Socrates was truly guilty or just another person fallen to the early form of democracy of a people who were possibly jealous and afraid of Socrates. However, by understanding Socrates intentions, it is clear that he was in fact innocent of the above charges, and was wrongly accused and executed.
Some of the best sources of information about Socrates' philosophical views are the early dialogues of his student Plato, who tried to provide a faithful picture of the methods and teachings of the great master. The Apology is one of the many-recorded dialogues about Socrates. It is about how Socrates was arrested and charged with corrupting the youth, believing in no god(s) (Atheism) and for being a Sophist. He attended his trial and put up a good argument. I believe that Socrates was wrongfully accused and should not have been sentenced to death. Within the duration of this document, I will be discussing the charges laid against Socrates and how he attempted to refute the charges.
Socrates, according to Plato challenged the norms of society by questioning life and having others question it as well. He was labeled of “corrupting the youth” and for not believing in the Athenians gods. “Socrates is guilty of corrupting the young, and of not acknowledging the gods the city acknowledges, but new daimonic activities instead.” (The Apology, pp 654) Although, he was cast by being “corrupt”, Socrates had many followers that saw him as a wise man. Socrates trial was made up of thirty jurors, who were later known as “The Thirty.” The “Thirty” really wanted was to silence Socrates, rather than taking his life. However, Socrates did not want to disobey the laws, he did not want to be violated of his right to freedom of speech, nor did he did he want to be undermine his moral position. (The Apology, pp. 647) He stood against injustice acts several times while he was in counsel. “I was the sort...
“I know that I know nothing.” says the man who has influenced modern Western philosophy and literature, has changed the way people have though with just simple questions regarding everyday words like “good” or “justice”, and has been put to trial and sentenced to death just on grounds of “defying the gods and corrupting the minds of the young.” Socrates was an influential Greek philosopher born around 469 B.C. in Athens, Greek. Despite his immense influence of philosophy and how it was understood, Socrates himself did not write anything. He simply asked questions. We know about his lessons today through the works of those who admired him: Aristophanes, Xenophon, and Plato.
Socrates was a philosopher who set out to prove, to the gods, that he wasn't the wisest man. Since he could not afford a "good" Sophist teacher, surely a student of one had to be smarter than he. He decides to converse with the youth of Athens, but concludes that he actually is wiser than everyone he speaks with. He then realizes that their lack of intelligence is the fault of their teachers. Socrates understands that the practice of "sophism" leads to a lack of self-knowledge and moral values. Socrates was later accused of corrupting the youth of Athens and put on trial. In The Apology of Socrates he sta...
When Socrates was brought to trial for the corruption of the city’s youth he knew he had done nothing wrong. He had lived his life as it should be lead, and did what he ne...