Plato’s Apology & Gorgias Argumentation, advocacy, and rhetoric are all concepts Socrates uses in Plato’s Apology and Gorgias in order to persuade others. For instance, Socrates uses argumentation and advocacy in Plato’s Apology in order to maintain his innocence and life for corrupting the youth. Similarly, in Plato’s Gorgias, Socrates seeks to use rhetoric to persuade his friend that tyrants kill others since that is what seems best for them. As Socrates illustrates, all these persuasive techniques can be used to either win an argument or persuade others in any given situation. However, in order to utilize argumentation, advocacy, and rhetoric to its fullest potential, a communicator must pursue the honorable as this will be what brings …show more content…
Argumentation can be understood as a communicative tool relying on reasoning and evidence to influence and sometimes, persuade, thinking or behavior through oral or written messages (Rybacki, & Rybacki, 2011). It is done by convincing the other party to consider one’s perspective through advancing one’s own personal agenda. In Plato’s Apology, Socrates gives an example of argumentation. While on trial for corrupting the youth, he gives a defense for his innocence.
While on trial, he welcomes and invites any youth or any relative, father, or brother of a youth to make an accusation of his wrongdoings (para. 62). However, no one comes forward to accuse him. Thus, through logos, Socrates argument can be made that if no youth, or relative, father, or brother of a youth can come forward to provide evidence for him corrupting the younger generation, how can he be found guilty? Surely an argument must be made against him, but no one comes forward to accuse him of his wrongdoings.
…show more content…
As Joseph P. Zompetti (2004) suggests, “through victimage and scapegoating, a rhetor uses a purification ritual as a means of identifying and blaming the guilt onto an ‘appropriate’ other” (p. 5). For example, a male African-American debater may blame whites for owning all the money and only hiring fellow white employees. Thus, these debaters seek to “purify” themselves by blaming the problems in society on others. However, Socrates would not agree with this. One of the prevailing themes in Plato’s Apology is doing what is honorable and graceful, rather than what is unjust and dishonorable. These debaters are doing what is disgraceful in these online
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
Through the accompaniment of rhetorical devices and pathos, one can strengthen his or her argument to the point where others see no other option. When spoken at the right occasions and with enough of supporting evidence, an argument will enrapture the audience and make people find your argument logical and appealing. Patrick Henry made his speech less than a month before the American Revolution took place. Thomas Paine began a series of articles when the call for men to fight against the British was urgent. When someone makes and argument, even the smallest detail counts.
Argumentation has followed humans from the dawn of time as a way for us to express our ideas and for our ideas to be heard. People naturally obtain the knowledge to persuade others, either backing their opinions by fact or touching others emotionally, from growing up and through their own experiences in life. We can be persuaded by a numerous amounts of different factors pertaining to the argument. There are four different types of strategies in which an argument can be presented and make the argument effective. Martin Luther King is a key example of the utilization of the strategies as he wrote, “Letter from Birmingham Jail” and Nicholas Carr also portrays the strategies with his essay, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” Both authors perfectly
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 fact, it’s I who can call what I think is a sufficient witness that I’m telling the truth, my poverty.” (Plato 661) Socrates also states “if I really do corrupt the young or have corrupted them in the past, surely if any of them had recognized when they became older that I’d given them bad advice at some point in their youth, they’d now have come forward themselves to accuse me and seek redress. Or else, if they weren’t willing to come themselves, some of their family members…would remember it now and seek redress.” (Plato 663) There was no one in the audience who stepped forward to speak on behalf of his accusers. Socrates consistently proved by words, how the accusations against him were false. In the end, he was accused of all of these things and put to death. This goes to show how much they truly hated Socrates and that no matter what they were told, it wouldn’t have mattered, they would have found a way to punish him in the
Aristotle believed that rhetoric is a skill habit of mind that is, in itself, morally neutral and can be used for good or ill. He believed th...
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.
For every teacher one may have, there is always a wiser teacher. Socrates is the wisest teacher in the city-state of Athens. A man who has been teaching his wise ways of questioning to students for over 25 years in the Agora is Socrates. Having been known as an adept to questioning, many adolescents and adults sought direction by Socrates. However, people have created accusations against Socrates such as not believing in the gods. Why put Socrates on trial now? At Socrates's trial, both the defense and prosecution have provided strong evidence, but the prosecution was not as strong as the defense. From the defense side, you'd hear from Plato, who is Socrates's most notable student, Crito, who is a lifelong friend of Socrates, and finally Aristophanes,
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 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 main argument in The Apology by famous ancient Greek philosopher Plato is whether, notorious speaker and philosopher Socrates is corrupting the youth by preaching ungodly theories and teaching them unlawful ideas that do harm to individuals and society. In his words Socrates quoted the prosecution’s accusation against him: “Socrates is guilty of corrupting the minds of the young, and of believing in supernatural things of his own invention instead of the gods recognized by the state.” 1 Further Socrates consistently introduces tediously compiled number of examples to provide valid and sound arguments to prove that he is innocent of the charges brought up against him to the court.
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?
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.
In Plato’s Gorgias, Socrates discusses the nature and uses of rhetoric with Gorgias, while raising moral and philosophical perspective of rhetoric. Socrates believes that rhetoric is a kind of false knowledge whose purpose is to produce conviction, and not to educate people about the true extent of knowledge (Plato 15). On the other hand, Gorgias argues that the study of rhetoric is essential in any other professional fields, in order to provide an effective communication (Plato 19). After their discussion of rhetoric, Socrates seems to understand the true extent of rhetoric better as compared to Gorgias, as he is able to use rhetoric appeals as a device to dominate the conversation. During their discussion, Socrates seems to have use rhetorical appeals, such as ethos appeal and pathos appeal to connect and convince the crowd of audiences, and logos appeal to support his claims. His speeches seems to have shown sarcastic aspects and constantly asking questions in order to keep Gorgias busy, at the same time preparing an ambush. Since rhetoric is the art of effective communication through the form of speaking and writing, with the appropriate knowledge and virtue, it can be used for good purposes. On the other hand, rhetoric also can be used as an act of conviction because rhetorical appeals can be defined as an act of persuasion as well. Learning the true extent of rhetoric can help an individual strengthen their verbal communication skills. Socrates uses rhetorical appeals of ethos, pathos and logos appeal to win his argument against Gorgias, as he is able to get the audiences’ attention through rhetoric and cornered Gorgias into revealing the true extent of rhetoric.
Rhetorical Analysis and Persuasion Every day we are victims to persuasion whether anyone can notice it or not. Logos, pathos and ethos are the types of persuasion. Logos persuades by reason, pathos by appealing to emotion and ethos by the credibility of the author. The characters in The Iliad employ the use of these techniques to sway another character into doing or feeling something else.