Polus Vs Socrates

Socrates implies that the true nature of this charge was, in fact, vengeance carried out on the part of the power-holders of the Athenian society; the politicians, the poets, the manual artisans.  Socrates, unwillingly made fools out of these people by exposing their speeches as mere rhetoric than actual wisdom and knowledge.  These men who were seen as the wisest and the most enlightened, but in fact, by believing that they are most knowledgeble is what keeps them from real wisdom.  Socrates is also being charged with attacking the Athenian society by corrupting its citizens, mainly the youth.  He defends himself by claiming that either Meletus beleives that Socrates does not corrupt the youth or he does corrupt them but involuntarily.  Socrates bring to light that "if I corrupt them voluntarily, the law does not call upon you to procecute me for an error which is involuntary, but to take me aside privately and reprove and educate me" (33).  Socrates goes on further to say

The old Greek and Roman realms are two cases of where insubordinate activities now give a premise to advanced law. From the Greeks, we have come to know the narrative of Socrates by Plato, and the Roman age was the season of St. Perpetua, an early Christian lady. The destiny of those people is comparable – a capital punishment passed on by the general public they lived in. In spite of the fact that the closure of their lives is comparable, the distinctions that lie in the reasoning of their demise are more unpredictable, with key variables influencing their individual pre-predetermined future. In this, we will see, these elements influence their connections to the states and time periods in which they existed.

Next, Euthyphro says that piety is “that which is pleasing to all the gods.” He further explains his father has been charged with murder. All gods are not favorable to those who commit such an act. Socrates argues that there are certain times that murder would be favorable. For example, killing someone in defense of the self. Also, killing someone in the defense of others. A soldier on the battlefield who faces his enemy is not viewed as a murderer but as a hero. The context in which a murder happens is what determines if it is an act that the gods will favor.

In page 7, Socrates starts by questioning Meletus about the living area of people. Miletus believes that Socrates “corrupting and deteriorating the youth” intentionally, so he charges Socrates. But according to Socrates’ query, nobody is willing to get the bad influence “intentionally”. Besides, Socrates never corrupt anyone. Even if he has, he does it unintentionally. Therefore, Socrates states that Meletus’ charge of him is illogical. “You hated to converse with me or teach me, but you indicted me in this court, which is a place not of instruction, but of punishment.” He believes that he is not guilty. Even if he is, he should not come to this court and facing the charges.

Socrates’s argument began by introducing his stance: “Doing what’s unjust is actually the worst thing there is.” Polus staunchly believed that suffering what is unjust is worse than doing what is unjust. In the quote, “Isn’t suffering what’s unjust still worse?” , Polus counters Socrates stance. Polus agreed that doing what is unjust is more shameful than suffering

Socrates is invited into Polemarchus’ home, he begins to engage in a conversation with Cephalus where they eventually discuss the meaning of justice using Socratic dialectic. A Socratic dialectic is a cooperative discussion where common opinions, that most people will say when asked, are exchanged through socialization. To showcase Socratic dialectic in the conversation, Cephalus answers Socrates’ question and states his own view of what is justice which is to follow the law, which is divine, and to tell the truth. Socrates begins to engage Cephalus’ stance on justice which leads to the deduction behind his viewpoint. Cephalus’ reasoning for this definition hails from his elderly age where his wealth is enabling him to be just via paying

The beginning of the discussion about a guardian's lifestyle begins with Polemarchus and Adeimantus asking Socrates about his statement about sharing spouses and children in common. Socrates argues that the rules of procreation is the only way to ensure a unified city and has support to answer these questions.

In Gorgias, Plato presents a series of conversations Socrates has with Gorgias and Callicles that explore oratory and the rules of law and nature. Socrates’ criticism of oratory and espousement of the rule of law imply a dislike for democracy, but for different reasons than Callicles’ dislike. Through these conversations, Plato suggests that democracy is actually a rule of nature with orators as the superiors.

He states “…the difficulties of maintaining hereditary states accustomed to a reigning family is far less than in new monarchies…” (Machiavelli, 5). Socrates may not oppose this first idea, but this sets up the rest of the book’s intentions which are how to rule most effectively, which Socrates may find very wrong. Machiavelli next goes into detail in The Prince on how this new leader should lead the people of his kingdom. He then tells a story about someone who was handed land and did everything correctly in his eyes but got very unlucky (Machiavelli, 1950). This person is Cesare Borgia, Duke of Valentinois. He was given territory by his father, Pope Alexander VI. He became a vicious ruler, one that Machiavelli extremely admired and claimed to have had ruled perfectly. Machiavelli admired how Borgia came into power and instantly took out any allies/armies he had a lack of trust with. Next, Borgia “…appointed Messer Remirro de Orco, a cruel and able man, to whom he gave the fullest authority” (Machiavelli, 27). This man was hired to keep control of the area and have everyone feel threatened so they wouldn’t be disobedient. But once Borgia found out this threatening figure running the land was causing people to dislike him as a leader, Borgia decided to cut Messer Remirro de Orco in half and display his body in the center of town. After displaying his body to the town, it “…caused the people both satisfaction

Although Socrates encourages questioning authority, he focuses on achieving morality and justice. He believes that

Plato utilized Polus to show that orators are never subject to any deeper thought because they are not questioned by others with different schools of thought. He, however, uses Socrates to exemplify that a true philosopher utilizes discussion to deepen his own thoughts. Polus had a view on happiness as a feeling in the moment, which is only analyzing happiness surface level. This led him to believe that tyrants such as the Great King are happy despite the injustices they commit (471 a- 471 d). However, Socrates views true happiness as a state of being in which one receives a favorable judgement in the afterlife (525 a- 525d). Their discussion shows that the comparisons of both their beliefs and a development of the idea of happiness could not have been brought to light without Socratic discussion. Plato shows that all parties benefit from Socratic discussion in developing philosophical thought because Socrates did not mention punishment in any of his previous refutations until Polus brought the idea to light. This ultimately shows that Socratic discussion is the only way to discover the truth because it instigates a conversation between different schools of thought. The idea of punishment influencing happiness is developed in Socrates’ last refutation, showing how

The great thing about being completely guided by the rational part of the soul is that once it orders everything, the other two parts of the soul can do their own thing; they can pursue whatever pleasure they're into, because the rational part will make sure everything is under control. In fact, that's the real problem with letting either of the other two parts of the soul take over: they don't actually understand what pleasure really is, so they end up leading you off in totally unpleasurable directions.

Socrates arguments against Callicles are not the easiest to comprehend at first glance, one must understand that the issue between the two philosophers is that of the nature of pleasure. To fully encompass this issue, let us divert back to the beginning of the dialogue when Socrates argues that orators and dictators hold no power or control over their audiences and subsequently the city. Nevertheless, after being constantly berated by Socrates logic, Polus and Socrates conclude that one does not want an act; one would want an act if it were beneficial to some degree, and avoid an act if it were harmful. This conclusion adds to Socrates argument concerning desire which fundamentally leads to one of the key differences between the philosophers. According to Socrates, pleasure is structured, and Callicles’ belief that it is not. The problem with the way Socrates’ views are presented in Gorgias, is that they can be viewed as hypocritical for Socrates simply

In the case of Polus and Callicles, it is evident that their training as sophists is used throughout their dialogue. Both often find themselves being led in a discussion by Socrates, only to have to fight their way out by use of rhetoric speeches. Despite their efforts, however, Socrates is neither impressed nor deceived.

Socrates believes that moral weakness cannot occur in the presence of knowledge. In his opinion, a knowledgeable person wouldn’t comply with anything other than their knowledge. According to Aristotle, Socrates “[thought that] it would be terrible... for knowledge to be in someone, but mastered by something else, and dragged around like a slave.” (Nicomachean Ethics, 1145b, 24-5) Hence, the agent who acts against their better judgement only proves their ignorance. According to Socrates, the person who engages in actions which are clearly contrary to their best interest must have mistaken beliefs. That is to say, the agent intends to act, in a sense, according to their best choices but they are simply mistaken about what is best for