Two ancient examples of disobedient actions come from different ages revered for standards that hold today and provide a basis for modern law; the Greek and ancient Roman empires. From the Greeks, we have come to know the story of Socrates as memorialized by Plato, and the Roman age was the time of Perpetua, an early Christian woman. The fate of those individuals is the same – a death sentence handed down by the society they lived in. Although the conclusion of their respective lives is the same, the differences that lie in the reasoning of their death run deeper, with several key factors impacting their individual destiny. As we will see, these factors affect their relationship to the states and time periods they existed. Understanding the differences between Socrates and Perpetua rests in two major elements. The first one is the role of religion and …show more content…
When asking how important the state is, the law asks; “Is your…country to be honored more than…all your ancestors…that it counts for more among the gods and sensible men, that you must worship it…?” Rather than a statement, Socrates makes his point that the law must be upheld, even in his case of a death sentence. It is important to note that Socrates accepted his fate, even though he felt the accusations against him were false. Yet, as if speaking on behalf of the law, recognized that escaping would only turn those untruthful indictments into the truth, and as a destroyer of laws; “You will strengthen the conviction of the jury that they passed the right sentence on you.” By the definition of the word martyr, as one who dies for a cause, in this instance the laws of the state, Socrates is justifiably fitting of that label. The narrative of the Roman woman Perpetua is a tale of martyrdom, but the cause is from a higher power beyond the Roman
Socrates a classical Greek philosopher and character of Plato’s book Phaedo, defines a philosopher as one who has the greatest desire of acquiring knowledge and does not fear death or the separation of the body from the soul but should welcome it. Even in his last days Socrates was in pursuit of knowledge, he presents theories to strengthen his argument that the soul is immortal. His attempts to argue his point can’t necessarily be considered as convincing evidence to support the existence of an immortal soul.
A twenty-first century reading of the Iliad and the Odyssey will highlight a seeming lack of justice: hundreds of men die because of an adulteress, the most honorable characters are killed, the cowards survive, and everyone eventually goes to hell. Due to the difference in the time period, culture, prominent religions and values, the modern idea of justice is much different than that of Greece around 750 B.C. The idea of justice in Virgil’s the Aeneid is easier for us to recognize. As in our own culture, “justice” in the epic is based on a system of punishment for wrongs and rewards for honorable acts. Time and time again, Virgil provides his readers with examples of justice in the lives of his characters. Interestingly, the meaning of justice in the Aeneid transforms when applied to Fate and the actions of the gods. Unlike our modern (American) idea of blind, immutable Justice, the meanings and effects of justice shift, depending on whether its subject is mortal or immortal.
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.
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 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.
Justice is generally thought to be part of one system; equally affecting all involved. We define justice as being fair or reasonable. The complications fall into the mix when an act of heroism occurs or morals are written or when fear becomes to great a force. These complications lead to the division of justice onto levels. In Aeschylus’ Oresteia and Plato’s Republic and Apology, both Plato and Aeschylus examine the views of justice and the morality of the justice system on two levels: in the city-state and the individual.
After Socrates had finished arguing with Gorgias in The Gorgias, he moves in to the next in line: Polus. They discuss the concepts of committing injustice over suffering injustice and the importance of punishment of the felons. Socrates say to Polus, “but in my opinion, Polus, the unjust or doer of unjust actions is miserable in any case- more miserable, however, if he is not punished and does not meet with retribution, and less miserable if he be punished and meets with retribution at the hands of gods and men” (Plato 53-54). Here Socrates declares that to do is worse than to suffer evil and if a man has done evil it is in his best interest to be punished than to be left unpunished. This is because according to his viewpoint doing injustice
Socrates lived at a period when the ancient city-states of Greece were in war leading to the ultimate defeated of his polis, Athens by Sparta during the Peloponnesian War. Socrates was fond of discourse and arguments on free thought and rhetoric. One of his most famous works, the “Apology” and inspiring Greek writer Xenophon to recreate his conversations in literary works after his death to include “Memorabilia” and “Economicus”. These writings appeared around the same period of the height of Plato’s activity through teaching rhetoric and philosophy in ancient Greece (Huang 404). Thus, it is prudent to explore both the writings of other Greek thinkers to lay down the proper and exhaustive foundation on the philosophy, plays, and teachings of Socrates (Russell 59). The rhetoric of Socrates did not sit well with the aristocrats in Greece who constantly accused him of corrupting the youth and leading meaningless and at times profane thought in both the youth and his students. The writings of the “Apology” finally culminates in the death of Socrates, who was killed by poison after being accused by informants and his old accusers of not grounding his arguments
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.
Though Socrates has been unjustly incarcerated, he refuses to escape due to his implied agreement with the Athenian legal system. This paper serves to argue that Socrates’ line of reasoning to Crito does not properly address actions committed under an unjust legal system.
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...
Socrates reaches a conclusion that defies a common-sense understanding of justice. Nothing about his death sentence “seems” just, but after further consideration, we find that his escape would be as fruitless as his death, and that in some sense, Socrates owes his obedience to whatever orders Athens gives him since he has benefited from his citizenship.
As Socrates said in Apology by Plato, “...the envy and detraction of the world, which has been the death of many good men, and will probably be the death of many more…”(Philosophical Texts, 34) Throughout history, many leaders have been put to death for their knowledge. In Apology, Socrates- soon to be put to death- says he was placed in Athens by a god to render a service to the city and its citizens. Yet he will not venture out to come forward and advise the state and says this abstention is a condition on his usefulness to the city. (36) My argument is that Socrates is of great service to the citizens of Athens, as he understands he knows nothing, he understands where he belongs, and through this
You are in an argument with your friend, would you rather be the one who is winning or the one who actually takes something away from the argument? This was the case for Protagoras and Socrates throughout the text Protagoras. Protagoras represented sophists, while Socrates represented philosophers. A sophist is a teacher of virtue, they twist what is being said to make it positive. They make others into skillful speakers. Philosophers are those who want to know what is true and want to be wise. Both had different points within the argument which is what made them different. While Protagoras wants to win the argument, Socrates wants to learn something from it, that is what exactly virtue is. There is a clear difference between philosophers and sophists, and I think it is better to be a philosophist.
Socrates is a philosopher known for his wisdom, and in the case of Meno, a dialogue between Meno and Socrates; he examines what it is to have virtue and the difference between opinion and knowledge. According to Socrates, the difference between the two subjects, knowledge and opinion, is their stability to be questioned and disputed. He demonstrated this with an analogy of a statue that is well grounded and is more secure that one that is not relating to knowledge vs. opinion.