Socrates and Luke are both considered to be great educators. They have both influenced countless people with their teachings. However, comparing the two is slightly strange since Socrates is the subject of the story, which is told by Plato, and Luke is the teller of the story of Jesus. A comparison can be made between the two as Socrates is a great teacher while Plato is mostly silent and Luke, while not overly prevalent in the his story can be compared to other accounts of the story of Jesus among which his by far the most didactic. But when you are comparing the two you must keep in mind that you are in actuality comparing four and also that while the story teller is supposed to only be telling you what he saw, he is also telling his personal vision of what he saw. Therefore he has a personal bias, which affects the purpose behind his style.
A strong parallel exists between the two storytellers Plato and Luke in that they are both biased to a great degree. While they both teach a wonderful perspective they teach solely their perspective with no room for any other. Luke asserts that when Jesus died “the sun’s light failed; and the curtain of the temple was torn in two,” (Luke 23:44) thus giving divine testimony that Jesus is indeed the son of the Almighty. Whenever Jesus is questioned the people who do so are inevitably wrong, there points being made to look stupid as Jesus transcends the question with a new concept. For example, in Luke 20:34-40 Jesus is asked about a wife who has been widowed and remarried several times and to who she should be married in heaven. This is a difficult question in Jewish tradition where the concept of the resurrection is that of a physical rebirth and the continuation of life on earth. However, Jesus comes up with an new and controversial idea of an immortal soul. He uses the rational that since God only spoke to the living in the Torah, he only deals with the living; so since God still represents you after death, you must still be alive after you die. This is a questionable argument at best however the obvious leaps of logic here are never examined because the questioning scribes “no longer dared to ask him another question.” (Luke 20:40) This obviously must be because Jesus is the Son of God who speaks with divine and unquestionable authority, or so Luke seems to imply. In much the same way,...
... middle of paper ...
...awesome strength and believability. So while martyrdom may not actually say anything about the truth of what they say, it is very still very convincing.
Overall, it is probably better to look at the teaching styles of Socrates/Plato and Jesus/Luke as being less instructional and more as a form of propaganda. The ways ideas are presented in both the accounts seem to be meant to convince the reader of a particular viewpoint rather than enlighten him. Biased accounts in both cases use manipulative and emotional methods such as leading and fantastic situations to influence the reader. This is not surprising since both accounts are apologies or defenses of a particular view. The goal is therefore not to educate but to persuade the reader to agree with the beliefs of the author. This is of course not to say that there is nothing of educational value in either of these accounts. Both contain monumentally important ethical principals such as wisdom comes from realizing that you are not wise, and love your neighbor as yourself. However, the actual teaching style that is used by both Plato and Luke is one that has a purpose beyond the reader’s own education.
...ledge above everything else, Socrates put an emphasis on the quality of knowledge and the quality of teaching thereafter. To this day, the seeking of knowledge and the eventual passing it on are revered tasks. It is said that teachers are among the wisest people on the land not only for their knowledge but their experience in handling different personalities. They are also respected for their grasp of the facts of life and what goes on around us. They explain life and make it worth living. No wonder Socrates said, “The unexplained life is not worth living” (Brisson 90).
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.
The myth of the Ring of Gyges has transcended hundred of years, thusly making it a ‘tale as old as time’. Modern adaptations of this myth include JRR Tolkien’s, “Lord of the Ring” series as an example. Through this legend and others, like the myth of metals, Plato is able to demonstrate what one ought to do if one is set owner of the infamous Ring of Gyges, ergo the argumentation of why one ought to act justly. If I had a magic ring such as the Ring of Gyges I would be inclined to act mischievously, but would wind up acting as though I did not have the ring. To fully understand my position, if I had a magic ring, can only be fully comprehended once the purpose of the ring, pertaining to morality is understood. I feel as though the Socrates of The Apology and of The Republic would answer in a consistent way. Namely, that regardless of possession of the ring or not, one should act justly.
Writing and speaking are two very different, yet extremely important activities to any educated person. Socrates, from Phaedrus and Letters VII and VIII, seems to think that spoken word holds great precedence over writing. His explanation of choosing speech over text is two fold. Through the breakdown of real knowledge and wisdom, Socrates proclaims that the only true teaching is done through speech. And through the way that he speaks with others, Socrates demonstrates how speech is the way to interact, teach, and learn from one another. Socrates is a firm believer of the notion that knowledge and wisdom can't be derived from written word. Memory is lost easily in his quote from the king Thamus, "those who acquire it [written word] will cease to exercise their memory and become forgetful"(Plato 96). He is using the story as an example of how the improper use of memory makes people scatterbrained. In this state people are therefore unable to interact with one another due to a lack of information. As for wisdom, "they [writers] will receive a quantity of information without proper instruction, and in consequence be thought very knowledgeable when they are for the most part very ignorant" (Plato, 96). Socrates is saying that words on paper cannot teach in a proper manner. Teaching is a method in which you act together with a person, using your mind and voice. If the teaching process is not properly carried out with speech, than there is no way that the learning by a student can take place. Through text both teaching and learning are incapacitated. Socrates lives the words that he speaks by trying to interact in a way that demonstrates his strong feelings for the uprising of spoken word. Issuing compliments on other known, intelligent philosophers by quoting is constant in his dialogue with Phaedrus. He uses descriptive words and the full scope of the language to get much out of people.
During this essay the trail of Socrates found in the Apology of Plato will be reviewed. What will be looked at during this review is how well Socrates rebuts the charges made against him. We will also talk about if Socrates made the right decision to not escape prison with Crito. Socrates was a very intelligent man; this is why this review is so critical.
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.
He portrays Socrates as an epic hero. We see this most clearly in Plato’s Apology in his intellectual battle with Meletus. It is also transparent throughout the Republic of Plato’s hero status. His students are a significant factor in Socrates’s profile. The way they revere him helps us understand and see who this man was. It is really the only visual we have of Socrates’s teachings and actions. This persona is slated through a weighted perspective, but we have other’s view of Socrates because of the people who went after him. We see two views of Socrates even though; we are swayed by Plato to the positive side. However, we still see the negative through the accusations of Meletus and others in Apology. They accuse him of being an Atheist and corrupting the youth of Athens. You can see where these men get these accusations. Although Socrates attends many religious activities he doesn’t hold any real religious views. Also the young men of Athens cling to his every word. He is highly influential for these young men, so he could be viewed as corrupting them. Gerd Van Riel addresses the inability to capture Socrates’s beliefs in his article, Socrates’ Daemon: Internalization of the Divine and Knowledge of the Self, “Socrates’ religiosity remains very difficult to appreciate. Our knowledge of Socrates’ religious convictions depends entirely on the information provided by Socratic literature.”
In the opening of The Apology, Socrates informed the jurors how he intends to address them, what they should pay attention to in his remarks, and what he sees as his greatest obstacle in gaining an acquittal. How does he intend to address the jury? Socrates’ approach towards addressing the jury is way different than what you would see a normal defendant doing. Socrates does not stand in front of the jury and beg that he doesn’t get charged. Instead, Socrates believes that you shouldn’t have to cry and beg for the right to live in court if the defendant has done nothing wrong. The first thing that he says when speaking to the jury was to basically hear him out, and listen to even if he started to talk in his language of habit. He then said they should excuse that because he is seventy years old and has never appeared in court. “I must beg of you to grant me one favor, If you hear me using the same words in my defense which I have been in habit of using, and which most of you may have heard in the agora, and at the table of the money-changers, or anywhere else, I would ask you to not be surprised at this, and bot to interrupt me (Dover p. 19).”
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.
In this literature review I will discuss both Socrates and Jesus Christ (Jesus). I will compare and distinguish them, by their trial, misdeeds (through the view of society), law, justice and punishment. In addition, I will write about their influence in today’s society and what impact they have made through time. Both Socrates and Jesus had many things in common yet, they we’re different. Both had different religious beliefs. While, Socrates was polytheistic, believing in several gods. Jesus, in the other hand was monotheism, believed in only one God. Both were charged, tried, and executed for their “radical” behavior with society. Overall, both men sacrificed themselves for the possible chance of change.
Since Matthew and Luke are not modern day biographies, they do not follow the standard that we imagine. I think the explanation for the combination of similarities and differences comes from the fact that the Matthew and Luke are styled differently and also have different audiences. Since Matthew and Luke are interpreting history for a specific audience, this would explain why Matthew and Luke contains differing details. For example, Matthew tells of the Wise Men that came to visit Jesus in Matt.2:1-12 while Luke tells of shepherds that came to visit Jesus in Luke 2:8-20. Since Matthew is styled for a Jewish audience, perhaps it is considered more impactful and stunning that wise philosophers came to worship a child. On the other hand,
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.
...ely different compared to Buddha because Buddha would the person that Socrates would choose to question and discuss with due to Buddha’s perceptible knowledge and enlightenment. However, regardless of their differences, Socrates and Siddhartha Gautama will be remembered as the prominent teachers to some of us.
how to get in to the Kingdom of God, what it is, and what it means to
The gospel of Luke is the third book of the New Testament. The theme of the gospel is that Jesus was Christ, as well as the perfect man who willingly sacrificed his life to save humanity. Though Jesus never sinned he suffered the penalty for the sins of many others. Luke begins with a detailed illustration of the events surrounding Jesus’ birth. He shares how the Son of God is born to a virgin mother in a manger and is visited by shepherds. The ultimate King was not born in an extravagant castle or temple nor was he in the presence of royalty, but He was born as if He were the lowest of men. Luke then shows us how human our savior really was. Our Lord wept, loved, and grew physically and intellectually. Though, as Luke points out, our Lords