Are Socrates Arguments Sound?
Socrates believes one cannot fear what one does not know. He believes since no one has an absolute knowledge of what follows death in the natural world, man should not fear death. He has several arguments to back this up. In this paper I will look at two of his arguments and conclude that his arguments are unsound due to the fact that opinions are not truths.
First of all, to prove Socrates' arguments are not sound, one must know what a sound argument is. In a sound argument all of the premises must be true. For example:
People under 18 are not eligible to vote;
Some students in college are under 18;
Therefore, some college students are not eligible to vote.
This argument is not only sound
…show more content…
No one can know what the most blameworthy ignorance is. It is not an absolute truth that it's the most blameworthy ignorance; therefore, it is not a sound argument.
I have proven by the second premise that Socrates first argument is not sound. If the word "most" is taken out of that premise, then I believe it would become a sound premise. Socrates would then be stating that it is merely ignorant to think one knows what one does not know.
Another argument that Socrates had about not fearing death was:
No one knows whether death is good or evil.
To do wrong and to disobey proper authorities is knowably evil.
If something is knowably evil, one ought to avoid it unless one knows the consequence to be a worse evil.
Therefore, one ought to avoid evil even if the consequence is death. (Pace)
Premise one is a sound because it is an absolute truth that no one can know if death is good or evil because once again it is impossible to know something that one cannot know.
Premise two is not a sound argument because it is an opinion of Socrates that to do wrong and to disobey proper authorities is evil. Public authorities are set up and they are given rules to follow. Everyone does not agree upon the rules or laws in which people must obey so it cannot be an absolute truth. What one thinks is evil, another person may not.
It is hard to argue premise three as a sound argument because again Socrates uses his opinion as a truth when it is really an
In his defense, Socrates claims over and again that he is innocent and is not at all wise, “…for I know that I have no wisdom, small or great.” Throughout the rest of his oration he seems to act the opposite as if he is better than every man, and later he even claims that, “At any rate, the world has decided that Socrates is in some way superior to other
Socrates’ argument was unique in that he tried to convince the jury he was just an average man and not to be feared, but in actuality demonstrated how clever and tenacious he was. He begins with an anecdote of his visit to the Oracle of Delphi, which told him that there was no man smarter than he. He, being as humble as he is, could not take the Oracle’s answer for granted and went about questioning Athenians he felt surpassed his intelligence. However, in questioning
People fear to be the greatest evil, may not be the greatest good.” Throughout the history of mankind, man has been fascinated with the mystery surrounding death. For many it is a phenomenon which is feared and for others it is a salvation from the misery and suffering of everyday life. In Plato’s “Apology”, Socrates has been sentenced to death and he claims that what “has befallen me is a blessing.” After the conclusion of his trial, he explains that there are two possible outcomes to death. Either death is a final end to one’s existence, or one dies
Socrates is believed to be one of the greatest philosophers of all time and he is credited as being the founder of western philosophy. This paper will explain some of his views to the most fundamental questions of today’s age. These questions will include topics about morality, the human condition, solution, and death. After Socrates’ views on these topics are explained, a critique will be done on his answers. I will start out by explaining exactly who Socrates is, and the time that he lived in. To start out, we will first examine Socrates’ view on morality.
The conclusion that can be made about these premises is that Socrates is not the one who is corrupting the youth because he is a specialist in this field. In addition, the real corruptors of the youth are the greater population of Athens because they are not specialist on teaching wisdom. What important about this conclusion is that even though Socrates uses horses as an example he manages to apply his example to all beings and prove his case that he is innocent of the charges.
Crito argues that Socrates should escape jail, and relies on the premises that he must consider the opinion of the public and that Socrates is betraying his children. Crito believes that Socrates is being foolish by remaining in jail and not escaping when given the opportunity. To support this argument, Crito presents two premises. The first of which claims that Socrates
While stating these reasons, Socrates was looking at it from the perspective of the state. He explained these reasons as if he was talking to the state, discussing why it is important to obey the law. Neglecting and disobeying that law is unfavorable because you agreed not to. Breaking a just law is problematic.
In this excerpt of Plato’s Apology, Socrates question method, the Socratic Method, is shown. Socrates presents Meletus with a thesis which Meletus agrees with, and then Socrates proves it wrong. By using the case of horses, Socrates proves to Meletus that like all other citizens of Athens, Socrates is a good influence on the youth. Socrates, yet again possessing the truth in this situation, demonstrates his wisdom through his skillful speech that “others fear.”
THEME: The line between good and evil is sometimes unclear, and as a result, people often think that they are doing the right thing when it is actually the wrong action, and vice versa.
This essay I will talk about four charges that were brought against Socrates in the work Apology by Plato. After describing the charge I will then go on to talk about why I think each of them are completely fake. There were four charges that were brought against Socrates. They were that he argued the weaker claim over the stronger claim, that he argue the physical over the metaphysical, that he was against the gods and that he was corrupting the youth. All of these charges are completely and utterly fake and I will tell you why.
In this essay I will show that Socrates answer to Meno 's paradox was unsuccessful. First, I will explain what Meno 's paradox is and how the question of what virtue is was raised. Second, I will explain Socrates attempt to answer the paradox with his theory of recollection and how he believes the soul is immortal. Third, I will provide an argument for why his response was unsuccessful. This will involve looking at empirical questions, rather than non-empirical questions and how Socrates theory of recollection fails in this case. Next, I will provide an argument for why his response was successful. This will involve his interview with the slave boy and how the slave boy is able to provide the correct answers to Socrates questions. Lastly, I will explain why Socrates ' interview with the slave boy does not actually successfully prove his theory of recollection by examining how Socrates phrases his questions.
What arguments do Socrates and his interlocutors provide in these dialogues and what does their discussion suggest about the way in which virtue is in fact acquired? Socrates initiates the inquiries into this problem in each dialogue the same way, that is, to admit no knowledge of the subject at hand. He further admits that he could not possibly teach virtue without knowing what virtue is, “if I do not know what a thing is, how could I know what to teach?” (ho de me oida ti estin,
The other two cases that Socrates underlined are the analogical contention and the appreciation contention. The analogical contention expresses that the relationship between the national and the state is the same as a kid and a guardian. The state raises each of its citizens by directing them with laws, pretty much as a guardian gives a kid rules keeping in mind the end goal to control and teach it, right from wrong (good from bad). As the "kid" of the state, Socrates feels he owes the higher power his loyalty for raising him. He doesn't think it is on the right track to ignore the law, pretty much as it isn't right to resist your folks since they are placed set up to benefit you and do what is best for you. The gratitude argument runs with
For example, for his Opposites Argument, Socrates fails to account for the necessary assertion that all things are a result of their opposite. He also fails to establish evidence for the assertion that death generated life due to the lack of description. If death generates life, it seems that in life a person could give such a first-person description. Socrates suggests that a person forgets death during the trauma of childbirth. But I find it hard to believe that a person would not recollect such an event. It follows that one might reject Socrates views and favour those of
Socrates then defended the second charge against him with logical arguments and facts of Athenian society, both of which made this part of his overall defense