Comparing Socrates 'Apology And The Meditations'

“The Virtues of Isolation”, written by Brent Crane, states that under the right circumstances being alone can provide significant psychological help. The article stated that scientists often associate isolation with negative outcomes due to it having adverse effects on the minds of children. However, when it is voluntarily pursued, it can be shown to have significant befits—some would even say its therapeutic. That temporarily isolating yourself gives you a chance to take a step back and take a good look at yourself. It alleviates the stress on our everyday lives and lets us relax. That the difference between solitude as therapy and solitude as misery depends on the quality of self-reflection that a person experiences, and the ability to reintegrate into social groups when their ready.

I believe the overall message of Henry David Thoreau´s “Solitude” is to differentiate solitude and loneliness which are totally different. It is more of a state of mind than something real. People around by other people would feel more loneliness than people who are physically alone. For Thoreau being in solitude is the best way to discover your mind and spirituality and is the best way to know yourself.

He finally says that “the unexamined life is not worth living” (Plato, 20). What exactly does this statement mean? It means if a person is living a life without truly striving for wisdom and understand and making sure they realize what life is really about, their life is without meaning. Socrates flips the accusations. He essentially attacks his accusers about not having enough knowledge and not being willing enough to understand what real knowledge is. He claims that without self-examination, life is without purpose. He claims that these men do self-examine. This statement seals his

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

He goes on to tell the story of why he began to challenge the intellectuals of society in the first place. Socrates tells of a deceased friend by the name of Chaerephon who “… went to Delphi and boldly asked the oracle to tell him whether… there was anyone wiser than I [Socrates] was, and the Pythian prophetess answered that there was no man wiser.” This troubles Socrates, and he contemplates what this statement really means. Unable to come to a sound conclusion, he devises a plan to get the answer he seeks: “I reflected that if I could only find a man wiser than myself, then I might go to the god with a refutation in my hand. I should say to him, ‘Here is a man who is wiser than I am; but you said that I was the wisest.’” After meeting with a man who had a reputation for being wise, however, Socrates departed without the man wiser than he. He left the man, thinking to himself: “Well, although I do not suppose that either of us knows anything really beautiful and good, I am better off than he is – for he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows.” After encounters with multiple men who possess supposed wisdom, Socrates realizes the prophecy must be correct: “… but the truth is, O men of Athens, that God only is wise; and in this oracle he means to say that the wisdom of men is little or nothing…” Socrates proceeds to question Meletus in front of the councilmen. He questions Meletus about the charges he has brought against him and his reasons

The phrase “I know that I know nothing”, often referred to as the Socratic paradox is famous saying that has been derived from Plato’s account of Socrates in The Apology. It demonstrates Socrates moral philosophy that true wisdom is accepting one’s ignorance. In Delphi of Ancient Greece, there is a sacred temple that lived a woman who has been known to be possessed by the gods, and thus able to obtain answers from them. In 440 BC, the Oracle of Apollo declared that “Socrates was the wisest”, and in great disbelief it made Socrates feel obliged to seek the true meaning of her remark. Socrates did this by “interviewing everyone who had a reputation for knowledge” to prove the oracle was wrong. For instance, in Plato’s Euthyphro, Socrates

Socrates tells a story in an attempt to explain this. It starts with a man named Chaerephon, a well respected citizen of Athens, who had died recently. Chaerephon goes to the Oracle at Delphi and "he asked if there was anyone wiser than" Socrates. (Apology, Plato, Philosophic Classics, page 23) The Oracle, of course, says that there is no man wiser than Socrates. When Socrates heard of what the Oracle said, he begins to wonder what riddle is hidden in those words. He knows that he is not a wise man, so he knows that he cannot be the wisest of men. Not knowing what then Oracle truly meant, he goes out to investigate this. He went to a man who was reputed to be very wise. He thought that he would find a man who is wiser than himself, and thus point out to the Oracle its mistake. Socrates finds that this man actually knows nothing that is worth knowing. When Socrates tries to point this out to the man, he and the bystanders become angry. Socrates says that he is wiser than this man because, while they both know nothing, Socrates realizes this. The other man thinks he knows things that he does not, while Socrates knows that he knows nothing. Socrates claims that he has done this with many men, and that each time, he came to the same result: the man knows nothing and thinks he knows everything, and Socrates has made the man angry. In continuing to do this, Socrates made many men angry, and that anger turned into

In these, he tested to see how wise so-called wise men were and each and every time he claimed that these men were not wise at all. Socrates went and tested all sorts of men from poets, politicians, and artisans. He claimed that all were inferior to him because they claimed to know much when they knew not much at all. And that, although he did not know all the tings these men knew, he was still wiser. He went so far as to tell these men what he thought, and even stated all these feelings in the court. This, no doubt, led to his general hatred more than any other act. But I wonder, had anyone ever questioned Socrates? And on what basis did he judge wisdom? Socrates claimed that a man who thought themselves the wisest were the least, but that is exactly what he was, a man who thought himself the wisest. Maybe he was the type of person to dislike any man who’s intellect challenged his own. “Is there not here conceit of knowledge, which is a disgraceful sort of ignorance? And this is the point in which, as I think, I am superior to men in general.”

Socrates, in skepticism, began a search for those with a reputation of wisdom. After studying men and their knowledge, he reasoned that the only true wisdom consists in knowing that you know nothing. Although one may have extensive understanding in one area, there is way too much knowledge in the world to be contained by one man. Socrates stated, “I found that the men most in repute were all but the most foolish, and that some inferior men were really wiser and better” (Plato, 23). Those who believed that they knew it all could not be more ignorant, and those who admitted ignorance achieved the highest wisdom attainable on earth. Socrates accepted the idea that he, just like all men, contained very little or no wisdom at all. He was content with knowing this, and upon meeting others that lacked this philosophy, felt he was superior to them. He was unsure of the limitations the afterlife had on wisdom, but he was aware of it’s constraints on earth. This self awareness is what gifted him with the highest sense of enlightenment.

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.

Thoreau opens "Solitude" with a melodious articulation of his pleasure in and sensitivity for nature. When he comes back to his home in the wake of strolling at night, he finds that guests have ceased by, which prompts him to remark both on his strict separation from others while at the lake and on the non-literal space between men. There is closeness in his association with nature, which gives adequate fraternity and blocks the likelihood of forlornness. The immensity of the universe puts the space between men in context. Thoreau brings up that on the off chance that we accomplish a more prominent closeness to nature and the heavenly, we won 't require physical nearness to others in the "station, the mail station, the tavern, the meeting-house, the school building" — places that offer the sort of organization that diverts and disperses. He remarks on man 's double nature as a physical element and as a scholarly observer inside his own particular body, which isolates a man from himself and adds encourage point of view to his separation from others. Also, a man is constantly alone when thinking and working. He finishes up the part by alluding to allegorical guests who speak to God and nature, to his own unity with nature, and to the wellbeing and imperativeness that nature gives.

   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?

In order to do this, he goes about Athens questioning those he believes to be wiser than him, including politicians, poets, and craftsmen. Upon this questioning, he discovers that even those perceived as the wisest actually know far less than one would expect. Even the craftsmen, who have much practical wisdom in their respective fields, see their success as merely a tribute to their vast knowledge of many subjects. This, Socrates claims, is not true wisdom. Human wisdom can be described as the acknowledgement and acceptance that one does not know everything, nor is one capable of knowing everything. This, however, does not mean that people should sit idly by, never pursuing wisdom, for it is still vital to the attainment of a good life, which should be the ultimate goal of mankind.

He did not feel that he was even slightly wise let alone the wisest man. He tried to prove the oracle wrong by examining reputedly wise men and he realized that they thought that they knew things that they did not and this made them unwise. It was after these encounters that Socrates realized that the oracle "meant that human wisdom is worth little or nothing."(19) It was this realization that made Socrates wise.

In the year 399 B.C., Socrates was put to trial for impiety and corrupting the youth. During the trial, Socrates had to deliver his defense speech, called an apology, which derives from the Greek word apologia which means to ‘speak in one’s defense’. There are two accounts of Socrates’ apology; Plato’s and Xenophon’s. The main difference between the two accounts is that Plato was present during the trail and paraphrased what was said. Xenophon, on the other hand, was not present but instead based his on Hermogenes’ reports before, during, and after the trail. Although both show Socrates to be incredibly pious, just, and accepting of death, they have many differences.