Socrates Analysis

Socrates was a Greek philosopher who stood for knowledge and virtue. He believed that in order for people to live their best lives, it is necessary for them to do what is right. “It is wicked and shameful to do wrong, to disobey ones superior, be he god or man (Cooper, 29b).” Socrates represents self-knowledge which is evident through his quest for finding someone who was wiser than he was. After his run ins with the likes of the local politicians, craftsmen and poets, Socrates comes to the realization that although these individuals had mastered their craft and were knowledgeable in their field of work, they were clueless in many other important aspects of life. Through this awareness, he accepts the fact that

Socrates put one’s quest for wisdom and the instruction of others above everything else in life. A simple man both in the way he talked and the wealth he owned, he believed that simplicity in whatever one did was the best way of acquiring knowledge and passing it unto others. He is famous for saying that “the unexplained life is not worth living.” He endeavored therefore to break down the arguments of those who talked with a flowery language and boasted of being experts in given subjects (Rhees 30). His aim was to show that the person making a claim on wisdom and knowledge was in fact a confused one whose clarity about a given subject was far from what they claimed. Socrates, in all his simplicity never advanced any theories of his own

While democracy has a simple definition, “power for the people”, the interpretations and means of executing that right by centers of power can vastly differ. In the ancient Roman republic, optimates and populares had vastly different political attitudes on who should play an active role in the government. In the name of democracy, leaders from both sides executed their power in different ways. However, optimates best represented the ideals of modern democracy through their attempts to prioritize efficiency and reduced conflict with qualified officials and have the people’s best interests at heart, with famous optimates such as Cato often standing up for the citizens against some populares’ attempts to abuse their power.

How well do these philosophers arguments apply to today’s democracies? For the purpose of this essay we will be looking at the United States of America as an example. In Plato’s view democracy creates men who believe “insolence is good breeding, anarchy freedom, extravagance munificence, and shamelessness courage is found to be somewhat true in democracy today. In many counter cultures such as Punk/gothic it is evident that many American believe insolence to be good breeding. Anarchy on the other had is the most free a person could ever get. If we take a close look at the current economic system in the U.S in which a free market economic system is preferred. In a free market economy the government tends to stay out of regulating the markets. When the governments does not agree with the way business is operating and tries to step in and regulate it, people of influence such as big businessman or commentators that have a big say and control in the public opinion step in to ease the governments grip. Even the general public dislikes it when the government is interfering with their affairs and would like more autonomy, while they do not necessarily harbor drams of anarchy these are anarchist tendencies. When it comes to extravagant within America are very commonly seen as munificent individuals. This is based on the trickledown effect which

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

Socrates’, Plato’s, and Aristotle’s main criticisms of democracy were based on both theory and precedents. Whereas Plato and Aristotle believed that democracy could lead to mob rule in part due to group-think based on a population’s impulses, Socrates advocated that governance should not be solicited based on the citizenry’s desires at any given time. Aristotle advocated that democracy was indeed the best form of government, or better said he believed democracy to be lesser of the forms of government. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle all believed that only the wisest should govern because those governed might squander resources and wealth, make decisions based on emotion, and revolt due to a perceived or real notion of inequality.

Both Greek Democracy and the Roman Republic contributed greatly to the development of the modern world, bringing into it the notions of democracy and republic. The evolution of these concepts took them to a level much higher than one present in Ancient Greece and Rome respectively. However, modern society continues to draw on somewhat idealized accounts of the ancient world for inspiration in improving today’s governing procedures.

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

Athenian citizens, I implore you to understand Socrates guilt within the matter of impiety. Impiety is lacking respect for a god or gods. Actions or words that go against the status quo of religious activity would certainly fall under the category of impious behavior. This includes the unnamed “divine” voice within Socrates head. Those that accused him may not have done so for the right reasons, but it does nothing to prove he is innocent of impiety.

The first and most important thing that Socrates encouraged was to recognize your own ignorance. “The principal lesson of the oracle story, according to Socrates, is that he is the wisest of men because only he recognizes the extent of his own ignorance” (Brickhouse 100). Socrates constantly expressed the importance of recognizing your own ignorance, in order to abolish ignorance within yourself. In addition to this, Socrates tried to open peoples’ eyes to their own ignorance, and to think with a more open mind. In the seminar reading package it says: “He (Socrates) describes himself as the “gadfly” of the state seeking to sting men into mental activity by opening their eyes to their own ignorance and thereby promoting wisdom and truth and the greatest improvement of the soul” (Jowett 247). All Socrates wanted to do here is to have the people recognize their ignorance, so they could learn from it and become smarter and better human beings. The “promoting wisdom and truth and the greatest improvement of the soul” part of that quotation just proves the good intentions that Socrates had. Next, in Socrates’ Apology he comments on how people are ignorant of their own knowledge on philosophers. He states people will claim philosophers teach things up in the clouds or under the Earth, and that philosophers do not follow the gods. With this, Socrates concludes that evil people will persuade others about such claims, leading to more ignorance.

Throughout the course of history, political philosophy has been dominated by two great thinkers: Niccolo Machiavelli and Socrates. Although both highly influential, Socrates and Machiavelli may not see eye to eye. When it comes to the idea of how an “ideal prince” would act, Machiavelli believes that they should lead through fear and follow a thirst for power, no matter the cost. Socrates, on the other hand, believes that they should lead through morality and have a healthy thirst for knowledge. Overall, these two would not exactly agree on what the actions of a good leader would look like or how a political system should be run.

‘The Republic’ is a Socratic dialogue written by Plato around 380 BC, concerning about the order of justice, the order and character of just men and just city/states. The Republic is considered as the best known work of Plato and is considered one of the world’s most influential works of politics, history and philosophy. In this Socratic dialogue, Socrates discusses about the notions of justice and whether the just man is very happy when compared with his unjust, Athenian and foreign counterparts. Socrates considers the various facets of the existing regimes and proposes a series of hypothetical cities that are entirely different from his considerations. Such heated discussions result in the culmination of discussing kallipolis, a hypothetical city-state that was ruled by a philosopher king. In this paper, we are going to consider Socrates arguments about democracy by examining whether the concept of democracy always remains inconsistent with philosophical goals.

Democracy is often referred to as the rule of the many, but Aristotle called this definition incomplete. In his book “Politics”, he explained that in a city if the majorities are aristocrats and if they have political authority, then it is an aristocracy not a democracy. He therefore defined democracy as when “free people have authority and Oligarchy as when the wealthy have it” (1290b). Plato viewed Democracy as a flawed system with too much inefficiency that would make any implementation of a true democracy not worth it. While Aristotle viewed democracy as a system that could work if it is limited to certain restrictions and if it is the regime that best fits the culture of the people to be governed. In this essay it will be argued that Plato’s view on democracy as a flawed system is more prevalent or more compelling if the current political arena around the world is observed.

one essential conviction, expressed in the word democracy itself: that power should be in the hands of the people. Although democracy today has been slightly inefficient in this idea, with the wealthy, elite class challenging this right, “it nevertheless claims for itself a fundamental validity that no other kind of society shares….” To completely understand the structure of democracy, one must return to the roots of the practice itself, and examine the origins in ancient Greece, the expansion in the Roman Empire, and how these practices combined make what we recognize as today’s democratic government.

This concept is based on his belief that philosophers are the only holders of true knowledge. In Republic Plato uses Socrates in dialogue to state, “Once one has seen it (Forum of Good), however, one must conclude that it is the cause of all that is correct and beautiful in anything, that it produces both light and its source in the visible realm, and that in the intelligible realm it controls and provides truth and understanding, so that anyone who is to act sensibly in private or public must see it” (Plato 189). Plato uses Socrates to argue that the only people with true knowledge are those who have access to the Forum of Good. According to Plato, this Forum is the source of all other forums and all intelligence and knowledge so a political state must have access to the Forum in order to thrive. However, the only ones who have access to this forum are philosophers and for this reason he argues that the welfare of the state is dependent on the existence of philosophers. He furthers this argument by stating that as a result it is philosophers who are most fit to rule, thus introducing the concept of a philosopher king as the most fit form of political rule for the welfare of all. These principles, although they have been adapted to account for differences in beliefs, societies, and political structures, are still the basis of many current political