Apology Paper

Socrates was a Greek philosopher, who is one of the founders of western philosophy. Socrates never wrote down his ideas or thoughts; his student, Plato, wrote down his ideas and thoughts. Socrates was accused of expressing there were different Gods and he was brought to trial in 399.B.C.E. Socrates character, in the different passages I read, Euthyphro, Apology and Citro are a little contradictory. Also if the act of persuading the state is the only alternative to blind obedience, why did Socrates' in both of specifically in his defense and generally in his career make so little effort to persuade the people when they were acting unjustly? In this essay I hope to demonstrate how Socrates character contradicts in these different passages and

The fight to do what is right is not an easy path to traverse, but is one which demands a noble and enduring character. Defending principles of justice with logic and reason in the face of political opposition, is a difficult task to take, but the elusive Socrates boldly undertook this endeavor. In Plato’s Apology, he recalls the daring defence of the principles of truth that Socrates took against all odds. Plato’s recollections, much like the trial of Socrates at the time, has sparked numerous debates amongst scholars who seek to understand the events of the trial more deeply. One such debate has centered on what Socrates meant when he said his speech was nothing more than words spoken at random. Brumbaugh and Oldfather, in their scholarly analysis, contend that Socrates’s speech is riddled with fine polish and organization suggesting that his speech was not random. As will be discussed, there are several examples of organization in Socrates’s speech such as when he provides his jurors with an outline of his speech. Additionally, masterfully woven throughout his defence, Socrates employed many diverse modes of argumentation in a logical and consistent manner lending credence to the notion that he planned his speech beforehand. This skillful use of these modes in Socrates’s argument, all vindicate an intentional design and premeditation. Despite Socrates’s humble assertions

Athens could also be seen as a place where they educated their citizens. Socrates understood that he would not be the man who he is today, without Athens. Like anything, a child would not willingly do harm on a parent, especially if they receive love and protection, and no harm in return. This parental versus child relationship is quite similar to the relationship Socrates had with Athens. The people of Athens could have assumed that Socrates would try to escape and that his death sentence would not follow through, but Socrates did not see this as an important factor. He believed that if he escaped, it would hinder the image of Athens because he would not be following their laws, which might influence the citizens to also break the laws of Athens. People with a lot of influence, have a lot of followers, for example, the people of Athens. If Socrates, supposedly the wisest man were to escape from prison and his death sentence, other people might think it is fine to disobey Athens as well. On the other hand, the citizens expected him to escape, but the fact that he stayed in prison to face his death sentence shows how seriously he took subjects like harming others and obeying the state to heart. Another objection to this argument could be, that Socrates was falsely accused and was harmed when he was truly innocent, he did not commit any of the crimes he was accused of, but Socrates still had the opportunity to a fair trial, he just did not use

Socrates was brought into the courts under charges of impiety and corruption of minors. Socrates did not believe in the divinities of the city-state. The punishment decided upon was an execution, in the hope that Socrates would choose exile, a punishment that would have satisfied the jury.

Plato’s account of Socrates’ defense against charges of corrupting the youth and heresy, reveal the ancient teacher’s view of justice as fairness and support of rule of law. In the Apology, Socrates faces a moral dilemma: to either accept his punishment for crimes he did not commit or to accept the assistance of his friends and escape death by the hand of the state. His choice to accept death in order to maintain rule of law reveals his belief of justice. He beliefs his punishment to be just not because he committed the crimes but because his sentence came through a legal process to which he consented. By sparing his life, he would weaken the justice system of Athens which he values above his own existence. This difference between the two men’s beliefs regarding justice draws the sharpest contrast in their views of effective leadership and government.

Socrates’s offering to the jury is to tell the truth, despite not admitting that it is simply his truth and thus not the entire truth, he is not able to convey to the jury the importance of not killing him. A bad citizen would try to undermine the jury by committing perjury and disobeying the decision of the court. He however, wouldn’t even like it if the jury committed perjury on his behalf, “Socrates says what he means on the stand hold honesty above all else, so when he is offered a chance to escape from his execution he does not take it. By refusing to escape, he reiterates how sticking to agreements is important to him. Socrates' commitment to the societal agreement between him and the city where he is allowed to live in

The portrayal of Socrates, through the book “the trial and death of Socrates” is one that has created a fairly controversial character in Western history. In many ways, Socrates changed the idea of common philosophy in ancient Greece; he transformed their view on philosophy from a study of why the way things are, into a consideration man. Specifically, he analyzed the virtue and health of the human soul. Along side commending Socrates for his strong beliefs, and having the courage to stand by those convictions, Socrates can be commended for many other desirable characteristics. Some of those can include being the first martyr to die for his philosophical beliefs and having the courage to challenge indoctrinated cultural norms is part of

His position had an immense impact on the guilty verdict of his trial because he behaved arrogantly toward the judges who would choose his verdict and punishment. For example Socrates refused to refer to the judges to the as their titles but only as, Athenians. This caused an outrage towards Socrates this was seen as disrespectful. As well Socrates would talk back to the judges, “Do not interrupt me Athenians, with your shouts. Remember the request which I made to you, and do not interrupt my words”(pg. 41). Logically Socrates should have been much more agreeable towards the judges considering the situation he was in, but in contrast he remained true to his philosophical lifestyle and pursued his innocence in a way he felt was best.

Socrates was found guilty of the following accusations; corrupting the youth, believing in different gods, or being an atheist, and for “examining” the heavens above and the earth below. He inclined for a fine that could be paid instead of facing banishment, however, the court decided to give him the death penalty. There he slept in prison when Criton approached and attempted to persuade him to escape. He declined as it would go against his logic and reasoning he taught his whole life. Was it “just” of him to accept the death penalty that was catalyzed by absurd accusations? This paper will argue that it was Socrates “right” to accept the death penalty due to the consent he made with the society he resided in.

As one of the most significant works in philosophy, The Republic has been one of the most historically and intellectually influential basis of many political theories and philosophical approaches since its first appearance. It is also crucial to mention that the book contains both Plato’s and Socrates’ arguments of life and the view of the Athenian Democracy in the ancient Greek world. Therefore, it can be confusing and complicated to decide to which philosopher the arguments belong. The main focus of the book is to find the definition and the whereabouts of order, justice and to establish a just state, as well as to prove that a just man is happier than the unjust man by providing examples. The true importance of The Republic lies in the fact that everything has meaning in it, not only the arguments, but also the people who act as metaphors for the different kind of roles, which they fulfill in the Athenian society, furthermore the way they speak symbolizes those roles and every one of them embodies a part of the soul and the city-state. Even though it is not obvious, Plato / Socrates criticizes the Athenian society and tries to establish a new, ideal one with the different people he meets and talks to in the book.

They say that a citizen of a city stands in the same relation as a child to a parent or a beneficiary and benefactor. Disobeying a parent was viewed as a serious offense, for a child owes almost everything they have to their parents, in the same way benefactors completely support their payees. Socrates is the child or the beneficiary in this situation, with Athens being his parent and benefactor. Socrates owed everything he had and was to the city. He was able to speak freely in Athens.

In examining Plato’s Republic, one should sense that Socrates puts forth a sophisticated appeal for the benefits of justice not only within the individual, but also of the resultant state (Plato, Republic ll. 190-226). Inherent in this, Socrates makes a keen observance on the necessity of individuals performing tasks best suited to their inherent abilities (Plato, Republic ll. 236-61). Nevertheless, one should be skeptical of the argument of Socrates and the ability of humankind, including individuals and ever-enlarging states, to abide by a uniform moral code that also intertwines tasks specific to individuals that will have a positive result.

In Plato’s The Republic and The Apology, the topic of justice is examined from multiple angles in an attempt to discover what justice is, as well as why living a just life is desirable. Plato, writing through Socrates, identifies in The Republic what he thought justice was through the creation of an ideal city and an ideal soul. Both the ideal city and the ideal soul have three components which, when all are acting harmoniously, create what Socrates considers to be justice. Before he outlines this city and soul, he listens to the arguments of three men who hold popular ideas of the period. These men act to legitimize Socrates’ arguments because he finds logical errors in all of their opinions. In The Apology, a different, more down-to-Earth, Socrates is presented who, through his self-defense in court, reveals a different, even contradictory, view of the justice presented in The Republic. In this paper, the full argument of justice from The Republic will be examined, as well as the possible inconsistencies between The Republic and The Apology.

In most circumstances ending the life of a criminal as their punishment usually reflects the magnitude of the crimes that they committed, crimes that often involve the deaths of others or equally heinous actions, yet one historical example stands out for not following this rule. In 399 BC, in Athens, Greece, two men put a meek philosopher named Socrates on trial for two crimes he purportedly committed: not following state gods and corrupting the youth. These charges alleged against Socrates reflected the general sentiment of Athenians regarding Socrates; namely that he was an atheistic charlatan. The jury found Socrates guilty of these crimes and executed, a punishment that does not logically befit the supposed crimes that he committed. No sane or logical jury would find him guilty of such vague claims, especially in such a vehemently democratic polis as Athens, and they would never have executed Socrates for such meager offenses, nonetheless he was. Execution was especially unnecessary because Socrates himself was on the verge of death; he was in his seventies in the Greek era, so he was bound to die soon anyways. The central focus, then, is of understanding how on Earth the birthplace of democracy could have gone so awry and when they tried, convicted, and executed Socrates. Athens sentenced Socrates to death because his beliefs were against the flow of the changing Athenian ideological landscape, people regarded him as a pompous, elitist charlatan who impugned their core

This perspective of Socrates represented by Plato demonstrates the difference between a man accused of wrong doings and a man who is being condemned. When Socrates is informed of the final decision by the jury he again keeps his composure and states in his defense speech by emphasizing that he is alright with the way he presented himself instead of begging and pleading. Finally, Socrates tells the jury “that there is hope in death and that he will enter into it with no fear”(Yount). His final request is for the jurymen to make sure that his sons grow up in the right way and praises some of the jurors who voted for his innocence.