Similarities Between Socrates And Confucius

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

Socrates is believed to be one of the greatest philosophers of all time and he is credited as being the founder of western philosophy. This paper will explain some of his views to the most fundamental questions of today’s age. These questions will include topics about morality, the human condition, solution, and death. After Socrates’ views on these topics are explained, a critique will be done on his answers. I will start out by explaining exactly who Socrates is, and the time that he lived in. To start out, we will first examine Socrates’ view on morality.

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.

2. During his main speech, to explain why he chose to live the life he did at risk of being “in danger of death” 28b, Socrates uses an example from the Iliad in which a young man chose to avenge his friend's death at the risk of immediate destruction as opposed to surviving. 28D paraphrased. This example of a life of integrity allows Socrates to demonstrate that all men should “remain and face danger, without a thought for death or anything else, rather than disgrace.” 28e. It is in this same moment that Socrates explains that were he not to live the life he has lived that he would be disobeying a god.

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

The concept of living “the good life” means something different for everyone. There is a general understanding that living “the good life” is associated with unyielding happiness and lasting satisfaction. The exact meaning of this desired life was pondered by thinkers and philosophers for hundreds of years. They constructed principals of behavior, thought, and obligation that would categorize a person as “good”. Although some of these ancient philosophies about “the good life” had overlapping ideas, their concepts varied widely. This contrast of ideas can be examined through two major characters in two famous works: Aeneas in “The Aeneid” and Socrates in “The Apology”. Aeneas exemplifies the philosophy that the direct route to “the good life" is through faith, trust in the Gods, and family, while Socrates in “The Apology” emphasizes free will, and vast knowledge of life.

Socrates’s offering to the jury is to tell the truth, despite not admitting that it is simply his truth and thus not the entire truth, he is not able to convey to the jury the importance of not killing him. A bad citizen would try to undermine the jury by committing perjury and disobeying the decision of the court. He however, wouldn’t even like it if the jury committed perjury on his behalf, “Socrates says what he means on the stand hold honesty above all else, so when he is offered a chance to escape from his execution he does not take it. By refusing to escape, he reiterates how sticking to agreements is important to him. Socrates' commitment to the societal agreement between him and the city where he is allowed to live in

This perspective of Socrates represented by Plato demonstrates the difference between a man accused of wrong doings and a man who is being condemned. When Socrates is informed of the final decision by the jury he again keeps his composure and states in his defense speech by emphasizing that he is alright with the way he presented himself instead of begging and pleading. Finally, Socrates tells the jury “that there is hope in death and that he will enter into it with no fear”(Yount). His final request is for the jurymen to make sure that his sons grow up in the right way and praises some of the jurors who voted for his innocence.

Socrates suggested that if he were to get what he deserved, he should be honored with a great meal for being of such service to the state. He rejected the sentences of prison or exile, offering instead to pay a fine. When the jury rejected his suggestions and sentenced him to death, Socrates accepted the verdict and said that no one but the gods know what happens after death and so it would be foolish to fear what one does not know. He also warned the people who voted against him that by silencing him rather than listening to him, they have harmed themselves much more than they have harmed him.

There is no doubt to the fact that Socrates and Martin Luther King Jr. had similar characteristics—whether it be their willingness to make the public aware or their passion to do what was right to them. But to say that Martin Luther King Jr. is a twentieth century Socrates does not seem fit to par. The way I will attempt for you to understand this will proceed as follows: I will first explain each of our character’s stories, perhaps heavily implicating some of their most distinct characteristics that can be discovered from the text. I will proceed to include their similarities, as well as their differences. Then I will attempt to explain both subjects’ profession/title, and comment on how the two may have similar things they want to

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.

Socrates teaches truth and righteousness to everyone he talks to. He says that he is chosen by the gods to enlighten people and teach them the errors of their ways. “Be sure this is what the god orders me to do…” Socrates says, For I go around doing nothing but persuading both young and old among you not to care for your body or your wealth in preference to or as strongly as for the best possible state of your soul (34).” Socrates teaches them to not be concerned with the material things of this world. He says that “to fear death… is no other than to think oneself wise when one is not, to think one knows what one does not know. No one knows whether death may not be the greatest of all blessings for a man, yet men fear it as if they knew that it is the greatest of evils (33).” It is for this reason that Socrates’ cannot escape with his friends and save his life. Because if he did, people would say that he contradicted himself just as Meletus did. People would say that Socrates’ lied when he said that he does not fear death and that Socrates’ was not the man he said he was. Socrates’ breaking out of jail would not show his righteousness and fearlessness of death. Two wrongs do not make a

Socrates is eventually found guilty and is to fight no longer for his innocence, but against a penalty of death. As Socrates speaks to the jury he begins to speak more of the meanings of life opposed to the need for life. He claims, “it is the greatest good for a man to discuss virtue every day and those other things about which you hear me conversing and testing myself and others, for the unexamined life is not worth living for men.. (Cahn pg. Apology39 38a1-4).” Although Socrates never explicitly states why he feels this way, but upon reading this statement and analyzing its context one can grasp a sense of this argument. Socrates is arguing that life is unlived if it is not questioned and our thoughts are not examined. He understands that his wisdom is far greater than that of the jury, and he feels that all other punishments would leave him unhappy and dissatisfied. He would rather suffer death than to go against the laws of the state, although he is being wrongly convicted. He feels he has lived a good life and a true life because he was able to examine himself and others true

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?”

Socrates and Confucius were both considered well-known philosophical thinkers that made a major impact to the lives of the people who followed their work. Socrates had a mission which was to, “expose the ignorance of those who thought of themselves as wise and try to convince his fellow citizens that everyman is responsible for his own moral attitudes,” and proved to be a major influence in the city of Athens (G.M.A Grube IV). Confucius was also more of a teacher figure and sought out as a philosopher to, “be actively involved in intellectual and social trends, and to improve the quality of life that was dependent upon them,” which he pursued by the teaching of his “six arts” (Ames & Rosemont 4). In order for one to comprehend some of the of the similarities and differences between Socrates and Confucius one could compare their moral convictions, religious beliefs, views on wisdom, and their views on virtue.