“To stand up for what you believe in is more important than to be scared of imprisonment or death.” – Socrates The Apology
In this literature review I will discuss both Socrates and Jesus Christ (Jesus). I will compare and distinguish them, by their trial, misdeeds (through the view of society), law, justice and punishment. In addition, I will write about their influence in today’s society and what impact they have made through time. Both Socrates and Jesus had many things in common yet, they we’re different. Both had different religious beliefs. While, Socrates was polytheistic, believing in several gods. Jesus, in the other hand was monotheism, believed in only one God. Both were charged, tried, and executed for their “radical”
…show more content…
The jurors found Socrates guilty and condemned him to death, by drinking hemlock. As Socrates learns about the jurors’ decision, he is not upset, and sees it as a sign from god that it is his destiny. “The god’s sign didn’t oppose me when I left home this morning, or when I was about to say something, even though in other discussions it has often stopped me in the middle of what I was saying.” (The Apology, pp. 668) As before, Socrates would hear a voice that would tell him when he should be quite, and not speak to avoid problems. Only that day he didn’t hear the voice therefore, he saw it as destiny from the gods.
Unlike Socrates, Jesus did not defend himself when he was being tried. He did not argue with the governor nor did he have a jury, at least a fair one. He was arrested forcefully and beaten. “They spat him in his face and struck him with their fist and beat him up.” (The New Testament, Matthew 26, pp 898) Jesus never retaliated back. Jesus mentions to the high priests of their wrong doing by arresting him as if he were a “highwayman.”
Jesus preached about His beliefs with God, and all his Glory. He went around telling people that he was the son of God. These accusations raised chaos with the Jews. He was brought to the house of Caiaphas, the high priest. They were looking for any kind of evidence, or excuse to kill Jesus. “The high priest
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
Plato’s “Defense of Socrates” follows the trial of Socrates for charges of corruption of the youth. His accuser, Meletus, claims he is doing so by teaching the youth of Athens of a separate spirituality from that which was widely accepted.
In today’s society there are individuals that depend on followers to conform to their beliefs and what they feel is right or wrong. We are currently a nation at war and have been for many years for different reasons. As a result of this, there is obviously diversity when it comes to civilian, political and military beliefs. We have soldiers that are willing to fight and die for the country they believe in to show true faith and allegiance to their nation and its President, politicians that fight for their bills and laws to be passed, and citizens who choose every day to either support the war or question our involvement in it. People fight for animal rights, gay and lesbian marriage rights and so much more. All this said, Socrates stood up for what he believed in, in “The Apology” and in an essence to this day it can be compared to modern day society and individuals or groups standing up for what they believe in.
Socrates, in his conviction from the Athenian jury, was both innocent and guilty as charged. In Plato’s Five Dialogues, accounts of events ranging from just prior to Socrates’ entry into the courthouse up until his mouthful of hemlock, both points are represented. Socrates’ in dealing with moral law was not guilty of the crimes he was accused of by Meletus. Socrates was only guilty as charged because his peers had concluded him as such. The laws didn’t find Socrates guilty; Socrates was guilty because his jurors enforced the laws. The law couldn’t enforce itself. Socrates was accused of corrupting Athens’ youth, not believing in the gods of the city and creating his own gods. In the Euthyphro, Socrates defends himself against the
In life, people are guided by moral beliefs and principles. Whether their beliefs are good or bad, their decisions are based on them. In Plato “The Crito”, Socrates emphasizes his moral beliefs and principles when he decides not to escape from prison. Although Socrates had the opportunity to escape his death sentence, he chose not to do so because he had a moral obligation to commit a sacrifice.
Despite the fact that I do not quite approve Socrates’ attitude and the way he was defending himself, I would not be able to give him any advice on doing it differently. This man had a very insightful, logical and genuine mind. He was teaching his disciples his beliefs. It was his beliefs he spoke about in the court. In order to defend himself and make a positive impression on the jury, Socrates would have had to mask his convictions and pretend to be something he was not at all. Besides, I do not think the he would be able to apologize and promise not to challenge people on their wisdom ever again. He just would not be able to keep the promise! This was his life and Socrates was already seventy years of age – too late to change and start forming his ideas and opinions all over again. If I could speak to the famous Greek now, I would beg him not to provoke the jury and apologize to them, but there is no way
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
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
Socrates has shown he has no fear in being accused of crimes he knows he didn’t do. He gives explanation by saying that if you are accused of mothing you didn’t do they accusers will be the ones in pain from the loss and wrong doing. He goes about explaining how he has never charged or tried to seek material good for his teachings, he only wanted to help people through their own wisdom. While in court they go through all of his accusations and Socrates has no struggle disproving his guilt and proving them wrong. He explains that the accusers offer no witnesses to the charge and even if they charged him he could not pay for it because he is poor (28). Socrates is a selfless man as seem through his actions that is only trying to prove his knowledge through wisdom and teachings. While in court Socrates was accused of not believing in the Gods of Athens. He goes on to explain that he does believe in the gods, he states that one cannot teach spiritual things without believing in the Gods themselves and cherishing their worth. He backs this up with the statement that
There are times in every mans life where our actions and beliefs collide—these collisions are known as contradictions. There are endless instances in which we are so determined to make a point that we resort to using absurd overstatements, demeaning language, and false accusations in our arguments. This tendency to contradict ourselves often questions our character and morals. Similarly, in The Trial of Socrates (Plato’s Apology), Meletus’ fallacies in reason and his eventual mistake of contradicting himself will clear the accusations placed on Socrates. In this paper, I will argue that Socrates is not guilty of corrupting the youth with the idea of not believing in the Gods but of teaching the youth to think for
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 Plato’s works Apology and Crito there is an attempt by Socrates to defend himself in court and defend his choice to receive the death penalty when found guilty. Although he makes very valid and strong arguments throughout one can only wonder why such a wise person would choose death over life. The following essay will analyze three quotes from Apology and Crito, find the correlation between them, and reveal any flaws that may exsist inside these arguments made by Socrates.
Socrates spent his time questioning people about things like virtue, justice, piety and truth. The people Socrates questioned are the people that condemned him to death. Socrates was sentenced to death because people did not like him and they wanted to shut him up for good. There was not any real evidence against Socrates to prove the accusations against him. Socrates was condemned for three major reasons: he told important people exactly what he thought of them, he questioned ideas that had long been the norm, the youth copied his style of questioning for fun, making Athenians think Socrates was teaching the youth to be rebellious. But these reasons were not the charges against him, he was charged with being an atheist and
One’s main concern in life was doing what is just and pious. He explains that if a man is good he cannot be harmed in either life or death. Socrates conducted his defense in a way that upheld his beliefs on the significance of life. He explains that if he “would much rather die after this kind of defense than live after making the other kind.” 38e. The other kind of defense being one in which he did not obey the gods. Such as if they acquitted him on the terms in which he did not practice philosophy, he stated he would “obey the god rather than you, and as long as I draw breath and am able, I shall not cease to practice philosophy.” 29d.
“Socrates’ positive influence touches us even today” (May 6) and we can learn a great deal about him from one of his students, Plato. It is in Plato’s report of Socrates’ trial a work entitled, Apology, and a friend’s visit to his jail cell while he is awaiting his death in Crito, that we discover a man like no other. Socrates was a man following a path he felt that the gods had wanted him to follow and made no excuses for his life and they way he lived it.