Difference Between Socrates And Socratic Education

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

The Crito and the Republic were both works of Plato. Plato’s works were divided into early, middle and late dialogues. The Crito falls into the category of the formal while the Republic falls into the category of the latter. In his early dialogues, Plato was influenced by Socratic philosophy but as he ages, he starts to develop his distinct and independent philosophy. Justice is the fundamental concept that will be discussed in this paper. The scope of discussion will mainly revolve around the Crito, the Apology and the Republic. In Socrates’ submission and acceptance of his sentence lies the implication that Socrates agrees with democracy as a political system. Plato, on the other hand,

Through several dialogues Plato gives readers accounts of Socrates’ interactions with other Athenians. While some may think of him as a teacher of sorts, Socrates is adamant in rejecting any such claim (Plato, Apology 33a-b). He insists that he is not a teacher because he is not transferring any knowledge from himself to others, but rather assisting those he interacts with in reaching the truth. This assistance is the reason Socrates walks around Athens, engaging in conversation with anyone that he can convince to converse with him. An assertion he makes at his trial in Plato’s Apology is at the center of what drives Socrates in his abnormal ways, “the unexamined life is not worth living for a human being” (38a). Socrates, through aporia, looks to lead an examined life to perfect his soul and live as the best person he can be. This paper looks to examine the ‘unexamined life’ and the implications rooted in living a life like Socrates’.

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.”

Socrates was a great philosopher of the Greek world. He was quite an atypical and distinctive person. Being different from all the other philosophers of the land, Socrates was teaching his students ideas totally out of the ordinary from what the society believed was right. As a result, he displeased many people so much that they decided to get rid of him. Socrates was put to trial, accused of spoiling the youth of Athens, tried and sentenced to death. His personal defense is described in works two of his students: Xenophon and Plato. Both of them wrote papers called Apology, which is the Greek word for “defense”. In this essay I used Apology by Plato as the main resource, since it contents a more full account of the trial of Socrates and

In Aristophanes' Clouds and in Plato's Apology we see extensive fictional representations of the historical figure, Socrates, who left us no literary works under his own name. When comparing these two representations, readers often assume, as a result of the nature of the comedic genre, that Aristophanes' portrayal of Socrates is exaggerated and fallacious. On the other hand, Plato's account is often taken more seriously as a result of the philosophical genre and the respected reputation Plato has as wildly influential thinker in Western culture. Nevertheless, there are more congruencies between the two representations than one would initially think. I'll discuss some similarities between the two works that

Opening Statement] In Plato’s The Republic his mentor, Socrates, discusses what the ideal education should include. He claims that “the rearing in music is most sovereign,” and makes an argument to defend his stance (80; bk.3, ln.401, par. d). Education for Socrates is not informative (this is how “education” is mostly viewed in modern times; just filling one’s mind with information), rather, he sees education as a formative tool to shape the soul of an individual. Socrates views music in a much broader sense than what would typically come to mind. “Music” in the Republic refers to both literary education and the conventional song/melody. Socrates’ beliefs on musical education are true because music is formative, music teaches temperance and good morals, and most importantly, he is correct, because the Bible itself teaches the importance of music.

Elenchus, as a famous Socratic method for education, uses dialogue and questions to approach philosophical truths. The method is presented in both Plato’s the Euthyphro and Aristophanes’s the Clouds. However, Socrates’s personal image and characteristics, as well as the nature of his questioning differ a lot in these two works. While the Euthyphro presents a philosopher king guiding the less wise people in discovery of truths, Socrates in the Clouds has little interest in either exploring the ethical truth or helping others get out of “Plato’s cave”. Instead, he is portrayed as a sophist who corrupts people with mysterious and useless knowledge, ignores traditional Athenian education, and debilitates Athenian men. Compared to Plato’s focus on Socrates’s wisdom reflected in the dialogue, the Clouds is a distorted interpretation of Socrates’s elenchus. Rather than justifiably criticizing Socrates, Aristophanes depicts him from a common Athenian 's perspective. It is this misunderstanding of the value of Socrates’s teaching by Athenian citizens that constitutes the failure of elenchus in both the Clouds and the Euthyphro.

In the Socratic dialogues of Plato, Socrates often argues against the pretence of knowledge in his interlocutors. In the case of the Laches, Meno, and Protagoras dialogues, the pretence is the knowledge of virtue, among other things. The Laches seeks a definition of arête (virtue), the Meno examines the teaching of virtue, and the Protagoras offers a known expert the chance to defend that virtue can, indeed, be taught. Using these dialogues as a backdrop, I will provide an analysis of the arguments and comment on the acquisition of virtue in Platonic dialogue.

In Plato’s The Republic and The Apology, the topic of justice is examined from multiple angles in an attempt to discover what justice is, as well as why living a just life is desirable. Plato, writing through Socrates, identifies in The Republic what he thought justice was through the creation of an ideal city and an ideal soul. Both the ideal city and the ideal soul have three components which, when all are acting harmoniously, create what Socrates considers to be justice. Before he outlines this city and soul, he listens to the arguments of three men who hold popular ideas of the period. These men act to legitimize Socrates’ arguments because he finds logical errors in all of their opinions. In The Apology, a different, more down-to-Earth, Socrates is presented who, through his self-defense in court, reveals a different, even contradictory, view of the justice presented in The Republic. In this paper, the full argument of justice from The Republic will be examined, as well as the possible inconsistencies between The Republic and The Apology.

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.

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.

This paper argues that Socrates makes a plausible case for justice. Socrates raised two main questions in the first two books of Plato’s Republic, what is justice? And why should we act justly? Thrasymachus and Glaucon both have different and more negative views of justice than Socrates. Throughout books one and two, Socrates, Glaucon and Thrasymachus go back and forth discussing the definition and application of justice in society. He starts his discussions with Glaucon and Thrasymachus by stating simply, “What is justice?”

In Plato’s, “The Republic,” Socrates mediates conversation, as he challenges himself, and those around him to arbitrate the value of justice and conceptualize the significance that it holds for both the individual and the state. Throughout books I to VI, Socrates, Glaucon, and Adameitus constructively develop a sense of justice through argument and the formation of an ideal state. However, this embodiment reaches a deadlock in the middle of book V when Socrates pronounces that everything discussed thus far is nothing but an ideology, unless a philosopher king is manifested.

“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.