Born into completely different situations at completely different times in history you may think that Socrates and Virginia Woolf may have a very different idea about the concept of freedom. Socrates was never able to experience freedom of religion which every American knows as a basic right given by the constitution. Woolf on the other hand was given just a glance at women’s equality and only because of her financial stability. While both Socrates and Woolf knew that they weren’t given a fair chance at freedom they both wanted to let others understand what they were going through so that when change happened, which they both knew it would, people could look back on the past and conceptualize about how far the world has come. So really the question
Socrates was never allowed to believe in what he thought was right. The Athenian democracy wouldn’t allow that. He was confined to the religious beliefs that the gods who created everything within the city of Athens, as well as around Greece, were the only mighty beings and that believing in any other spirits was completely wrong. However, Socrates believed that a person shouldn’t be held to a strict set of rules and that by doing so they are just conforming to the regular belief held by
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
Insects may be the bane of some people’s existence, but the creatures are truly strong globes of energy, going about their lives, flitting to and fro. Thoreau and Woolf both captured this essential spirit in their writing. In “Battle of the Ants” and “The Death of the Moth,” both writers observe other life forms, but the way in which they perceive the insects struggles vastly differs. According to an online biography, Thoreau’s exposure to transcendentalism as well as his friend and mentor Ralph Waldo Emerson both shaped his writing to emphasize “the importance of empirical thinking and of spiritual matters over the physical world,” whereas Virginia Woolf’s parents raised her to be free thinking which resulted
...t was commanded by the gods. Socrates says that he devoted everything to this quest. He completely ignored his personal affairs to the point where he was completely broke. If he does not believe in the gods that the state believes in, namely, the ancient Greek gods such as Zeus, Hera, Apollo, Hermes, Athena, Ares, Hades, Aphrodite, Poseidon, and many others, then why did he go on a quest appointed by gods that he does not believe in? The only answer possible is that Socrates does believe in the gods of the state and that the accusation is false.
In conclusion, Socrates was guilty of inventing his own deity, which violated the Athenian laws and the general moral principle held by Athenians, though his main purpose was to improve the society and educate the youth through questioning. However, he was a great citizen and thinker in ancient Athens, since he developed a new value system which did guide the people to the truth and rightness, despite the fact that some part of defense was not convincing and involved sophistry. In addition, the legal system of Athens had some defects for it let the majority rather than professional judges or lawmakers make judgment, leading to the tragedy of Socrates’ death.
Here, I would like to ask you, the men of Athens, firstly, why at all should Socrates have mentioned everything I just said, if he really does not believe in god as some of you accused? Moreover, how dare you to accuse such a man, who serves the gods at all expenses and even risks his life for it? Doesn’t such a man deserve our respect? Furthermore, as we believe in our gods, how dare we put such terrible charges upon the wisest man of Athens, who is sent by the gods to awake us Athenians?
Socrates was accused of bringing false gods into the polis and corrupting the youth. The only false god was himself. For he might have presented himself in such a way to his many followers. These followers were mostly, as he says, wealthy young men with not much to do. This I could imagine is where a good deal of his conceitedness comes from, being almost worshipped be others. These men followed all of his teachings and practices, including the condescending cross-examinations, which were probably the worst of his acts.
Socrates was not guilty as charged; he had done nothing wrong, as seen in the Apology. Not even a priest could tell Socrates what he had done wrong religiously, Euthyphro wasn’t even able to give Socrates a precise definition of piety. It is then questioned by Crito why Socrates would remain to face a penalty for a crime he did not commit. In the Crito, it is explained why, although innocent, Socrates must accept the penalties his peers have set upon him. It is his peers that will interpret and enforce the laws, not the law which will enforce it. Even if the enforcers don’t deserve attention and respect because they have no real knowledge to the situation, Socrates had put himself under their judgment by going to the trial. Therefore, Socrates must respect the decisions made by the masses because the decisions are made to represent the laws, which demand each citizen’s respect.
In response to the second objection, Socrates does make a large leap from saying that he believes in the spirits to saying that he believes in the gods, however, this does not necessarily mean that his statements are false. In the objection we say that these supernatural spirits could include ghosts or other dead souls, but at the same time the spirits can include other divinities and gods. We are not trying to prove that Socrates believes in a certain god, but that he is not an atheist, or one who denies or disbelieves the existence of god. Furthermore, Socrates is already charged of teaching the youth to believe in divinities and unlike supernatural powers, divinities are deities or gods and goddesses. The fact that Socrates believes in divinities refutes any objection that Socrates may be an atheist.
Socrates and Thomas Hobbes, two independent philosophers of two independent eras, both had divergent beliefs of government and citizen. Socrates’ whole life was persuading and disagreeing with common beliefs and questioning everything and everyone - except his own death since he had no comprehension of “self-preservation.” Hobbes, however, believed people had to give up the right to question in order for the sovereign to protect the commonwealth. The life and death of Socrates contradicts Thomas Hobbes’s view of self-preservation because ultimately, Socrates defied protecting himself and died in the hands of his own government. Although Socrates might argue that his death was justified because he failed to persuade the Athenian government for
The Contrast of Virginia Woolf and Alice Walker After reading the four essays assigned to this sequence, it becomes interesting to contrast two author's points of view on the same subject. Reading one professional writer's rewriting of a portion of another professional writer's essay brings out many of each of their characteristics and views. Also, the difference in writing styles could be drastic, or slight. Nevertheless, the writers display how versatile the English language can be.
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.
Socrates was a traveling teacher and talked and challenged everyone he met. Socrates taught the art of persuasive speaking. He did not charge people money like most of the other Sophists did, but he did have similar beliefs as the Sophists. Sophists thought that our minds are cut off from reality and that we are stuck in our own opinions of what the world was like. Socrates believed that reason or nature could not tell us why the world is the way it appears. The Sophists' point of view is best summed up as this: we can never step out of the way things appear.
In other words, Socrates was using this as analogy between what is holy and what is approved of by the gods as holy, he is saying that it is approved because it got approved by yourself and not that it is approved because it has already been approved by the gods. He used this analogy because it was a perfect argument to defend his claim, he is simply stating that you approve of what is holy and not believe something is holy because it has already been approved. What you approve of as holy is what should be holy and not what someone else approves of holy should define what you consider holy. Everyone has their own opinion and has the right to believe what they think is best for them. If they don’t agree with what you believe, then why should they believe in what you approve
Socrates says that God determines what is right and wrong. “I owe a greater obedience to God then to you and so long as I draw breath and have my faculties, I shall never stop practicing philosophy and exhorting you and indicating truth to everyone I meet” (Apology, 29d). God’s rules and commandments are what you need to follow in order to assure a good life after death. God and his commandments come first over everything else. Socrates believes in the divine command theory and how you must listen to Gods commandments. God decides what is moral and obedience to God is how you live justly. Socrates also says he will never stop practicing philosophy because in his eyes philosophy is the way to live life. He has said that living without examining life is a life not worth living. Questioning and indicating truth to others by pointing out their ignorance is what he saw as an essential part of being moral. Morality ties in to the question of solution by asking questions and seeking wisdom you are doing what is just and fixing the condition of humanity. Morality also relates to condition because the soul must be more important than material objects in order to be moral. He says you must follow cities laws and obedience to Gods laws as well in order to be just. On top of that you should be self-examining yourself so that you can better the soul as much as
Socrates felt that, above all, one should be a good citizen and always do the right thing (Plato 18). However, many in his time did not worry about doing what was correct. Socrates realized this, and understood that they did not care to look into their actions and beliefs. Their first thoughts were on the goals that they had, such as money and pleasure, rather than the thought of whether or not the goals they held were actually what should have been considered important and right (Plato 26). Socrates knew that, unless they took the time to question their lifestyles, they would never do the right thing. By living a life that was being examined, the citizens would be living a life that was, for the most part, also right. Socrates believed that a life that was not right was not worth living, which is why he also felt as though an unexamined life would also be not worth living.