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
In the Apology, Socrates aimed to do three things: defend his ideas and principles, continue to teach those who will open their mind and state that he knew regardless of what he said he was aware that all five hundred and one jurors knew who he was and disliked him. Socrates was well aware of the fact that he had made multiple enemies, he knew that the politicians, poets, rich and craftsmen all
In any case of law, when considering truth and justice, one must first look at the validity of the court and the system itself. In Socrates' case, the situation is no different. One may be said to be guilty or innocent of any crime, but guilt or innocence is only as valid as the court it is subjected to. Therefore, in considering whether Socrates is guilty or not, it must be kept in mind the norms and standards of Athens at that time, and the validity of his accusers and the crimes he allegedly committed. Is Socrates guilty or innocent of his accusations?
According to the majority of the jury members of Athens, Socrates is a corruption to the youth, doer of evil and does not agree with the gods of his people. In the Apology, written by Plato these are the assumptions and accusations Socrates is held in court for. In court, he is faced with what most men fear, being wrongly accused leading to the death sentence. Socrates argues and strives to prove that he has no fear of being hated, being accused of serious crimes, being threatened with punishment, or being put to death.
The philosopher Socrates remains, as he was in his lifetime (469–399 B.C.E) an enigma, an inscrutable individual who, despite having written nothing, is considered one of the handful of philosophers who forever changed how philosophy itself was to be conceived. He is the son of a sculptor and a midwife. It is always talking, wearing a coarse coat, through the streets barefoot, in any weather. It has an ignorant and vulgar appearance, it is ugly and unbearable and whining woman. He never leaves Athens, is not interested in the science of nature but the human world, and especially to moral issues. He questions the essence of the virtues (such as courage, justice, piety, friendship, love ...) and seeks to propose definitions. We can say that the Socratic question par excellence is of the form "What is x? ".
Plato’s Apology is the story of the trial of Socrates, the charges brought against him and his maintaining of his own innocence throughout the process. At the onset of the trial, Socrates appears to challenging the charges, which included corrupting the youth, challenging belief in the gods that were accepted and reveled by the State, and introducing a new religious focus, but also belittles his own significance and suggesting that he will not attempt to disprove that he participated in the actions maintained by the court. In essence, Socrates appears almost self-effacing, and his defense surprises even his accuser, Meletus. But by the end of the Apology, Socrates becomes almost a different person,
In Plato 's “The Apology of Socrates”, Socrates states, “the unexamined life is not worth living” and he would rather be put to death them stop his practice of philosophy (The Apology). In this writing, Socrates is charged with not accepting the gods recognized by the state, devising new gods, and corrupting the youth of Athens. However, the word "apology" in the title is not our modern English interpretation of the word. The name of the speech stems from the Greek word "apologia," which translates as a speech made in defense (SparkNotes Editors). The “The Apology of Socrates” is an account of the speech Socrates makes at the trial in which he defends himself, not apologizes. What Socrates meant by declaring, “the unexamined life is not worth living”, is that a life is worth living only if it is lived in as a pursuit for a life worthy of a man to live (The Apology). Socrates believed what makes a man worthy of life is that he lives up to what is best in him as a man. Therefore this quote can be better translated as, “the unexamined life is not a worthy life for a man to live”. Socrates believes a good or worthy man has virtue. Virtue is behavior showing high moral standards such as honor and nobility. An unexamined life is one that does not examine oneself for these characteristics but claims to have wisdom. This unexamined life can be also compared to living your life on autopilot with the same dull routine and beliefs. According to Socrates, to live an examined life, one
The Apology was written by Plato as an account of the defense that Socrates presented during the trial in which he was condemned to death. Socrates gave this apologia, or defense of one’s actions, against the accusations that he did not believe in any gods, and that he was corrupting the young men of Athens. Not being as skillful in the art of oratory as his accusers, Socrates admitted that he would, as plainly as possible, present only truthful and logical refutes to the accusations that were against him. Being wise in the way of rhetoric, Socrates used pathos, ethos, and logos to argue in his defense. Although ultimately executed, Socrates masterfully defended himself in court and proved that he was a man of both virtue and wisdom.
the Apology and Crito, Socrates explains his reasoning stating that it is better to be wronged, than to do wrong. Socrates was explaining to Crito than even though in their opinion that Socrates being put to death is wrong that they cannot do something wrong also. In the Crito one of Socrates main points is that “Even if your enemies have wronged you, you still have to do the right thing”. Socrates isn’t rejecting self-defense he rejects the notion of doing something wrong back to the person or the city. One of the many people putting Socrates to death, Meleteus is simply damaging his soul by doing such an injustice. In the Apology Socrates explains Socrates goes on to explain that he is damaging his soul, and if Socrates escapes he
Socrates is at the age of seventy and appearing in a law court for the first time. For the people of Socrates time is accusing Socrates, for miss leading the youth corrupting them and boasting about being wise, causing him to become very unpopular. Socrates says to the jury I am going to speak the whole truth, for it is me by myself that I have to defend. He says my accusers are many and I don’t know them, they say, “you should be careful not be deceived by an accomplished speaker like me” (Cohen, Curd, & Reeve, 2000). The accuser goes on to say that Socrates is accomplished speaker; Socrates starts to praise them, because their lies are so good well put together, that Socrates himself is almost convinced but then he says that they do not
In the Apology, Socrates is facing charges of corrupting the youth and being an atheist. Socrates provides the argument of believing in the gods and the children of the gods to the jury. I will quickly discuss the “offspring of the gods” argument made in the Apology 27a-28a. Then, I will analyze the argument and specify the contradictions made in the argument. I will use this contradiction to show how Socrates implements it into his defense. Throughout this paper, I will declare that this argument does not rightly find Socrates guilty because of lack of evidence and contradiction.
The Apology and Phaedo by Plato are two different books describing what is like to be a philosopher per Socrates believes. These two books take place in two different scenarios in Socrates’ life, The Apology takes place in a court room where Socrates is to defend himself from false charges brought to him by Meletus who is acting as the prosecutor. Phaedo, on the other hand, takes place in a prison cell post judgment on the day of Socrates execution. Hence, The Apology and Phaedo appeared to display different philosophies: The Apology, Plato presented Socrates as wise for he knows that he knows nothing, hence he is seeking wisdom by questioning those who think they know more or something, just to find that they don’t know anything, therefore Socrates makes it his duty to make them look ignorant/stupid. Phaedo, Socrates focuses primarily on death and the immortality of the soul, hence he is seeking knowledge by devoting his final hours picking the minds of his friends to explain the role of a philosopher, which is preparing for death. Consequently, these two views are really the same, yet presented differently by Socrates, for in one he is defending his freedom and life using philosophy, hence he has only done what the Gods expected of him. From the other view, he resigned to his fate, for as a philosopher, he knows his soul will finally become liberated from the evils and limitations of the body to come to its divine state.
Undoubtedly, the Apology of Socrates is one of the most significant work among all the classics. It is an account of the speech of Socrates makes at the trial in defence for the accusations of not recognizing Gods recognised by the Greek and corrupting the adolescents of Athens. Throughout the speech, Socrates speaks in a very plain manner to attempt to defend himself and his conduct. Though Socrates was sentenced to death as even his eloquent argument could not persuade all the juries, his final speech provides tremendous philosophical insights that help us to examine ourselves. At such, I believe the Apology of Socrates teaches us quite a few important ideas, that include the necessity for one to be humble withstanding one knows a lot
Plato was an Ancient Greek philosopher who lived between 428-432 B.C. He wrote mainly in dialogues, to stay true to how Socrates communicated philosophy. Plato displayed what is considered Socrates’ philosophy throughout the dialogue The Apology. In The Republic, Socrates is mainly used as a mouthpiece to communicate Plato’s philosophy. Socrates follows a philosophy best explained as “I do not know”, whereas Plato tries to find the ultimate solution to philosophical problems. In this essay, I will argue how Socrates has the best philosophical approach compared to that of Plato.
Aristophanes’ Clouds, if read hastily, can be interpreted as a mindless satyr play written in 419 BCE. Yet the chorus warns the reader not to expect the play to have farcical ploys like “a hanging phallus stitched on” the actors to evoke a laugh, but has underlying seriousness as “she [the play] comes in trusting only her words” (Clouds 538-44). Even if the play does use some low devices, the play’s message is sophisticated and can be read as a warning to Socrates. Aristophanes is a “friendly critic” of Socrates and warns Socrates to change his ways for Athens and for the good of himself (Whidden). Plato’s Symposium and especially his Apology of Socrates justify the claims made in Clouds about the dangers of philosophy and Socrates to