Athens vs Socrates

Socrates was a Western Ancient Athenian Greek philosopher who lived from 469 BCE until his death in 399 BCE. He was a student to another philosopher, Sophists, Socrates was different from most Greek philosophers he wanted to get at the truth and find out how one can truly be ‘good’ and moral in life. “To Socrates the soul is identified with the mind; it is the seat of reason and capable of finding the ethical truths, which will restore meaning and value of life” (ADD IN-TEXT CITATION SEMINAR). We continue to use many of Socrates teachings today, such as, ‘The Socratic method’, which is known as asking a question and within these questions you lead it to the answer you wanted to hear, many uses this as a teaching technique and is shown to be highly effective. A great number of Athenians looked up to Socrates and considered him the wise man of Athens, he had many followers whom would ask questions and seek answers. As popularity and following of Socrates grew so did accusations. The charges laid on Socrates by the Athenians were unjust and therefore his death was highly wrong in the eyes of true democracy that Athens was apparently known for. In this paper, I will discuss how Socrates was wrongfully convicted for the corruption of the youth despite having many young followers, introducing new Gods while still being considered an Atheist, and the main reason he was seen as a threat to Athens was that he brought change to the city.

The Greek society was a direct democracy with people voting on the issues themselves instead of representatives voting on their behalf. Any male citizen over the age of eighteen was allowed to vote. Like the Romans, the Greek government was divided into separate parts. The Greek government consisted of an assembly, council, and courts, with each requiring a different number of voters present. The people all gather and vote on issues by hand, and this is the simplest form of majority rules. The role of the people is extremely important in how the society and state is governed and run. This early form a democracy was detailed by Pericles funeral oration during the Peloponnesian War. Pericles was an eminent Athenian politician who states in regards to the government of Athens, “Its administration favors the many instead of the few; this is why it is called a democracy (Pericles, “Funeral Oration”, pp. 2)”. Here, Pericles states that the people have all the power and their opinion is highly valued. Likewise, the Romans valued the people’s opinions so highly that they entrusted with them rewards and punishments, vital aspects that held the society together. Pericles also states, “…nor again does poverty bar the way, if a man is able to serve the state, here is not hindered by the obscurity of his condition (Pericles, “Funeral Oration”, pp. 2)”. Here is the essence of democracy, every man no

The Republic by Plato examines many aspects of the human condition. In this piece of writing Plato reveals the sentiments of Socrates as they define how humans function and interact with one another. He even more closely Socrates looks at morality and the values individuals hold most important. One value looked at by Socrates and his colleagues is the principle of justice. Multiple definitions of justice are given and Socrates analyzes the merit of each. As the group defines justice they show how self-interest shapes the progression of their arguments and contributes to the definition of justice.

By comparing himself to the Greek hero Achilles before the jury in Plato’s Apology, Socrates attempts to portray himself as a hero of equal merit to Achilles and others of similar standing. By selecting the greatest of the Classical Greeks to compare and contrast himself to in his argument, Socrates surreptitiously urges his audience to view him as being of the same caliber as Achilles. This not only authenticates Socrates’ claims, but also exhibits his disconnect from earlier forms of thought. Essentially, Socrates attempts to display himself in the same light as his predecessor Achilles through their shared aspiration to do what they deem to be right in addition to their

Niccolò Machiavelli, a Florentine philosopher and political aficionado from the 16th century and Socrates, a classical Athenian savant who lived during the 5th century B.C., are both judged as being forefathers to modern western political science and thought. The two great men both came from erratic epochs within their respective nations of Italy and Greece: wars, transitions of power, and domestic conflicts left their countries void of sustainable leadership and in desperate need of a brighter future. But despite being from equally hopeless times, their theories on how their societies (and ultimately, future ones) should function in order to prosper, are divergent. In this essay, I will argue that Socrates would

As a defender of civic virtue, the significance of obligation and authority of one’s representative government epitomizes the magnitude of respect that Socrates had for Athenian Jurisprudence, irrespective of the fact that he was prosecuted against. In the accounts of the Apology and Crito, there exists a plethora of evidence that demonstrate Socrates’s adherence of institutionalized authority. His loyalty of the Athenian State derives from his notion that the obligation to surrender to the law manifests a just society. One may ask, “how is it possible for a persecuted man to continue to profess allegiance to a polity that sought his trial and execution”? Though many would not have the capacity to sustain such integrity, Socrates had his reasons in

Over the course of history there have been several attempts at defining what it means to be the ideal person, and by extension how to create an ideal society. In doing so, several characteristics are generally defined, some of which are courage, moderation and self control. The concept of courage has been fluid in its meaning but has been highly valued across ancient Greece. In this paper I will be observing two societies and the ideals that they hold for generating better people, as well as what values they would want to instil. One city is theoretical, and one real: Kallipolis, Socrates’ economic city, the city that would essentially be the opposite of Athens if it were established, and Sparta.

Pericles argument is that Democracy is the proper form of government. By Democracy Pericles identifies a variety of viewpoints. It is asserted by Pericles that citizens should defend their city, by doing so, they are worthy of such an honor (Pericles, 1). Moreover, by the establishment of a democracy as a form of government provides the citizens to rule directly instead of ruling through a representative. Therefore, the decisions are thought out, voted, and agreed on by the citizens as a majority instead of having one person dictating what is to occur. Furthermore, Pericles asserts that citizens should fight to defend their city therefore by democracy men are allowed to advance due to merit instead of privilege (wealth and social class) (Pericles, 7). For this purpose any man with sufficient capacity to rule is allowed.

When dealing with the extent to which Socrates is a good example for following the ideals of democratic citizenship, a good source to use as a point of comparison to his life is the principles laid out about that citizenship by Pericles in his Funeral Oration. In the Oration, Pericles brought forth certain ideas about Athenian democracy and how its citizens should live their lives in accordance with it. He held these views to be paramount and used them in association with the principles of Athenian Law to prove a persuasive point that Athenian democracy had to be one with the people to survive. Above all other ideals he held first the thought that politics was the highest

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.

In this manner, Athens’ unsympathetic mindset for the plight of smaller entities can be found to derive from Athens’ own social structure. In Athenian society, a just act is ideally differentiated as such by the society itself. On a global scale, this can be interpreted to mean that a city-state is held accountable for its actions by others, and the morality of a state’s atrocities are inherent to if it has the power to accomplish them. Pericles states this on the individual level during the Funeral Oration, where he claims that “power is in the hands not of a minority but of the whole people,” and that “what counts is (...) ability which [one] possesses” (Thuc 2.37). In this oration, Pericles is drawing the conclusion that, because an aspect seems to be present in the successful Athenian society, the same virtue holds on a state-wide scale.

Socrates argues that the laws are intended to make Athenians better people and that if an old man wandering around asking questions can corrupt the youth, then what sort of youth must they be. He argues that if Athens is so unstable that they cannot withstand questions then they are already

The political community in Athens is a very much closed, since you have to be wealthy enough to be labelled as a citizen and he said democracy is something someone born into. The Athenian citizens makes their political community isolated from rest of the people who do not qualified to be a citizen. These are the people who are always agreeing with one another, and there is never a much room for someone else to come in and disagree with them, because in order to voice your opinion to these individuals you have to a citizen. This is not ideal, we as citizens always looking for ways to improve out city. So in this case Pericles definition of a citizen Socrates does not qualified to be one in Athens, but Socrates has a different idea.

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.

In his literature Socrates has a meaning behind forms. They are also called Platonic Forms, and these are abstracts that are the entities that have been existing self-sufficiently of the sensible world. Actually, they are the ordinary objects that are thought to be imperfect and changeable; nonetheless they faintly copy the perfect and unchallengeable Forms. Therefore, all of the information that have been acquire about the sensible objects (like recognizing what the high and low temperatures were on the day before) is temporary, unimportant, and untrustworthy, while genuine familiarity of the Forms themselves (like knowing that 93 - 67 = 26) perfectly definite persistently.