More handpicked essays just for you.
Essay about the socrates apology
The charges against socrates in the apology essay
The charges against socrates in the apology essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In “The Apology”, Socrates is being accused of not following the religion that time the law believes he should follow. Those accusers accused Socrates that he is an atheist and that is bad for Athenian and people who live there. They low put Socrates in front of a trial, so that he is able to explain to judge why he doesn't believe in same God that others believe. During the trial period, Socrates explains how they there have been old accusers that say Socrates is an evildoer and a curious person who is destroying the Athenian with his outstanding knowledge. His defense was started by saying that those accusers are lying, and he is going to prove it in the court. He takes permission from the jury to confess him to talk alike as he talks always. …show more content…
Socrates shows his death penalty because whatever he has nothing harm anybody or he never forced anyone so that they will follow what he thinks is right from his best knowledge. He also thinks, there are two types of morality which totally depends on people mentality. Furthermore, he stated that the novel man encourages you to do well. On the other hand, there are evil people, who always try to find something poison on a good thing. Therefore, they want to hunt you down for the good thing that you have done. So that, you would not gain better reputation than them. They could go as far as they need to make sure that you would not reach to your destination. For example, one Bangladeshi American engineer, blogger, an atheist was hacked to death because of his belief and scientific writing last year. Before he was threatened by extremists and they warned him if he ever visited Bangladesh than he will be dead. However, the writers wrote on his blogs that he never write that he doesn't explain why he believe that and he can talk face to face those who think he is bad for society. Nevertheless, the extremist don't accept his challenge and unfortunately, he was murdered when he went to book fair in Bangladesh but his wife was lucky enough to survive. In fact, I think he was not worried about his life. He just wanted to show us that do not believe unless you have experienced that exact thing. But what we have seen that after he was murdered, people were more curious that they wanted to know what he had written that made other people angry towards him. That time all his book were sold out. From that point, I think that writer is not physically living but his good works still exist in our world as well people will remind him of those things he had explained to us. So, all you need, When you have done something for the society that you think is good, all you need to be careful on that whatever you are doing is
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 The Apology is an account of the speech. Socrates makes at the trial in which he is charged with not recognizing the gods recognized by the state, inventing new gods, and corrupting the youth of Athens. For the most part, Socrates speaks in a very plain, conversational manner. He explains that he has no experience with the law courts and that he will instead speak in the manner to which he is accustomed with honesty and directness. Socrates then proceeds to interrogate Meletus, the man primarily responsible for bringing Socrates before the jury. He strongly attacks Meletus for wasting the court¡¦s time on such absurd charges. He then argues that if he corrupted the young he did so unknowingly since Socrates believes that one never deliberately acts wrongly. If Socrates neither did not corrupt the young nor did so unknowingly, then in both cases he should not be brought to trial. The other charge is the charge of impiety. This is when Socrates finds an inconsistency in Meletus¡¦ belief that Socrates is impious. If he didn¡¦t believe in any gods then it would be inconsistent to say that he believed in spiritual things, as gods are a form of a spiritual thing. He continues to argue against the charges, often asking and answering his own questions as if he were speaking in a conversation with one of his friends. He says that once a man has found his passion in life it would be wrong of him to take into account the risk of life or death that such a passion might involve.
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.
In his work Socrates’ Apology to the Jury, Xenophon produces an account of the Socratic deliberation –and indeed the logic that seemed to inform that deliberation- over his trial. Specifically, Xenophon, provides his readers with an ambivalent justification of Socrates’ chosen rhetoric during his trial, namely his “boastful manner of speaking” or megalegoria (Patch, footnote 2). Indeed, instead of choosing to deliver a speech that would gain him the jury’s sympathy and the city’s acquittal, Socrates proceeds to deliver a speech that is characterized mainly by its ironic arrogance. Xenophon goes so far as to provide his readers with a kind of statement of purpose that frames Socrates’ megalegoric speech; Socrates had, in the words of Xenophon,
If Socrates were put on trial today it would be much like his trial in Athens, most likely put on trial for the same reason of some citizens resenting him for his deeds of making them seem foolish. Upon living within our society, he would have had a grasp of what we value and want from life. Knowing about what his view of our society would most likely be, I believe that Socrates would defend himself and make a statement to our society by explain to us, are we only resent him due to our arrogance as found in the Apology and The Allegory of the Cave, how we must change our ways as a society by properly prioritizing our efforts to seek wisdom as seen in his conversation with Meno, and will refute how any punishment we could give him will not
Plato’s “Defense of Socrates” follows the trial of Socrates for charges of corruption of the youth. His accuser, Meletus, claims he is doing so by teaching the youth of Athens of a separate spirituality from that which was widely accepted.
Socrates starts by speaking of his first accusers. He speaks of the men that they talked to about his impiety and says that those that they persuaded in that Socrates is impious, that they themselves do not believe in gods (18c2). He tells the court of how long they have been accusing him of impiety. He states that they spoke to others when they were at an impressionable age (18c5). These two reasons alone should have been good enough to refute the first accusers of how they were wrong about him but Socrates went on. He leaves the first accusers alone because since they accused him a long time ago it was not relevant in the current case and began to refute the second accusers. Socrates vindicates his innocence by stating that the many have heard what he has taught in public and that many of those that he taught were present in the court that day.
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.
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.
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
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.
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."
He never really claimed whether death was a bad thing but he did have a way of saying that there is a bad within the realm of it. Some of these things can be lying, being violent, abandonment, etc. So if it came down to Socrates having to lie in order to live, he would rather choose to die. This leads to him thinking that he had “strong evidence” that his indictment and death may be a good thing. He believes in doing to right thing. So for Socrates he committed a crime that he feels he needs to pay for, and he’s choosing to see the positive side of his death whether it is just sleep or life after death. Therefore, if he believes he is doing the right thing then death might end up being a good
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.
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.