Analysis Of Socrates

1. Socrates was charged and eventually put to death for corrupting the youth. What was his defense of his actions? Do you think that his defense of his actions was adequate? (In other words, had you been on the jury, would you have voted in favor of Socrates or against him?) Defend your position. Socrates was told by the oracle that no man is wiser than him, as a result, he went around searching for someone who confronts the oracle 's logic. Unfortunately, those he thought possessed a greater wisdom were not in fact wise and he informed them of this. He gained many enemies in the process; however, somewhere along the line he realised that what God was telling him was "The wisest man is the one who, like Socrates, knows that his wisdom

I say this because If I were to place myself in that time period, I, like others would have felt as though Socrates was going against all the morals and beliefs society put in place. People of that time had very strict ideals of God and what he expected of them, so it is understandable why they had such negative feeling towards the one man who challenged those ideals. If someone were to tell me everything that I believe and know is false, and that I am not wise I wouldn 't take it so well neither. However on the contrary, with consideration of todays logic, it is quite absurd to execute someone simply because they possess different views from you. In todays society there exists the freedom of expression and religion and in Socrates defense, he did nothing but express himself in a society not structured to openly receive his reservations. However if I do not pose certain questions, know that I have not been listening in class. What proof does Socrates have to make the judgment that someone is wise or not? What exactly is wisdom? And how do we know such a thing

In my opinion, A Priori is obvious it doesn 't need much experiment or evaluation, for example "the green grass is green". A Posterior on the other hand is more of a proven fact, for example "I was born in 1997". I strongly believe that A posteriori is more superior because it is a fact proven by science and or personal experience, I know that Africa is hot because I lived there for 3 years that is my experience. It also lies on the equator and contains only two seasons; dry and rainy season which has been proven by science. As for A Priori how do I know that the green grass is really green? How do I know it is really green? What if I see Blue? A priori rests on no evidence, just insight and is gained through deduction with no empirical