Socrates And Not Antigone : An Effective Policy For Improving The Health Of Their City

Over the course of history there have been several attempts at defining what it means to be the ideal person, and by extension how to create an ideal society. In doing so, several characteristics are generally defined, some of which are courage, moderation and self control. The concept of courage has been fluid in its meaning but has been highly valued across ancient Greece. In this paper I will be observing two societies and the ideals that they hold for generating better people, as well as what values they would want to instil. One city is theoretical, and one real: Kallipolis, Socrates’ economic city, the city that would essentially be the opposite of Athens if it were established, and Sparta.

In The Republic Book IV, pp. 130e-136d, Socrates sets out to prove that societal justice is analogous to individual justice. In order to substantiate the analogy, Socrates compares the individual and the city. As he previously defined, justice in the city involves the power relationships between the different parts of the city, namely the guardians, the auxiliaries, and the producers.

Despite living thousands of years ago, Socrates and Machiavelli were both influential thinkers whose works are still relevant today. These two great thinkers and philosophers wrote about and extensively studied political systems. The influences of their work can still be seen today in constitutions and governments around the world. Were it not for their transcendent works, there is a real chance today’s systems of government would look very different. While no governments today exactly match those advocated for by Machiavelli and Socrates, their writings surely influenced other thinkers later on in history. Both of these philosophers advocated for different leadership structures with the hope of creating fair and long-lasting states.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a reflection on the field trip to the Hindu Temple of Greater Chicago. After a brief Introduction to the Context, the Watercress tool will be used to highlight my observations.

Niccolò Machiavelli, a Florentine philosopher and political aficionado from the 16th century and Socrates, a classical Athenian savant who lived during the 5th century B.C., are both judged as being forefathers to modern western political science and thought. The two great men both came from erratic epochs within their respective nations of Italy and Greece: wars, transitions of power, and domestic conflicts left their countries void of sustainable leadership and in desperate need of a brighter future. But despite being from equally hopeless times, their theories on how their societies (and ultimately, future ones) should function in order to prosper, are divergent. In this essay, I will argue that Socrates would

As Socrates was building the city, according to his different accounts of how city ought to be. There were different classes of people and the position they held in the cities community. In a just city as Socrates claims there will be citizens, guardians and a philosopher king as the ruler of the city. In order to maintain order, politics influence on human nature by politically influencing laws such as stopping peoples from changing their division of labour. For example, Socrates claims that it is impossible for an individual to practice many crafts proficiently as discussed by the companions earlier. (Plato, 1992, p. 49). The reason there is division of peoples in the city is so the city can run efficiently, if there were many people doing many thing, there will not be an efficiency of work. For this reason, politics constrained human nature in which individual as human nature wants to do more than one thing, but it is stopped through influence of ideology of how one ought to be. That individual does not want to do one job for the rest of his life; this form of ideology is first form pre capital which was discussed in the republic. Continuing, as politics influence increases in the republic the more constrained human nature becomes. In politics, the political thought of Socrates creates a guardian for city, a protector to defend against an enemy or to conquer land for the city. In

To this question, first Socrates says that he should not revenge injustice. Because doing injustice is bad in any circumstances (Crito 49b), to return injustice just because of having injustice done onto himself would bad also (Crito 49c). Therefore Socrates should not commit injustice just to get even with Athens. Injustice is bad because it harms, and disobedience to the law would harm the city (Crito 50b); so it seems that to disobey the law would be an injustice. But why should Socrates obey the law of the city? Socrates reasons that since the city has done him great benefactions, such as giving birth to his life, taking care of his physical upbringing and his education, and granting him long years of benefits from the legal system (Crito 50e - 51c), Socrates owns the state a strong duty of gratitude just as a child would own to his father. One of those duties is to obey the state (like how a child obeys his parents), which always has included the possibility of death such as in times of war (Crito 51b). Socrates should obey the city because he has made an agreement to do so. This agreement is the social contract that he has implicitly accepted and lived under for 70 years. This contract is legitimate because Socrates had a thorough understanding of the legal system (Crito 51e - 52a), he did not leave the city when he was given the fair chance all his life (Crito 51 c-e), and that he

This essay will consider the quote by Plato ‘the price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men. It will be discussed how this quote is still as relevant today as it was when Plato first constructed the statement.

Socrates was a great thinker and debater dedicated to truth. He spent his golden years walking the streets of Athens in pursuit of wisdom. Socrates lived the destiny that was revealed to him in the Oracle. He created and perfected his own cross-examination technique; we today know it as the Socratic Method. He was thorough and unrelenting. His subjects were often humiliated. Socrates would methodically disprove anyone he thought was wrong. In his eyes, most of the people he interviewed were blind. It did not matter if one was wealthy and influential or if they were young and impressionable. Socrates could question anyone and turn him or her inside out. Unfortunately, he did so without regard to the

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

Socrates believes that he is an individual who had the potential to accomplish extraordinary feats due to his unique set of traits. He claims, “If they were of any use, Crito, the many would be able to do the greatest evils, and so they would also be able to do the greatest goods, and that would be fine. But as it is they can do neither, since they cannot make a man either wise or foolish” (Crito, 44d). Only certain people have the capacity to complete enormous feats, and those people are not average citizens of the state. Instead, they must have qualities that set them apart from the rest of the population. Furthermore, “it is reputed at least that Socrates is distinguished from the many human beings in some way” (The Apology, 34e).

He proclaims that “examining both myself and others is really the very best thing that a man can do, and that life without this sort of examination is not worth living” (Plato 66). Socrates believes that the government will be able to change so that people who value goodness and truth would be in power. However, later in the Apology, Socrates contradicts himself when he explains why he has led a mostly private life, saying that “if I had long ago attempted to take part in politics, I should have died long ago” (Plato 58). Socrates believes “a man who really fights for justice must lead a private, not a public, life” (Plato 59). This goes against what he has been saying for the rest of the trial and demonstrates the unrealistic quality of the high standards to which he holds the government and leaders. If Socrates says it is dangerous for proponents of justice to live a public life, it becomes extremely difficult for politicians to be virtuous and morally good, since politicians live essentially their whole lives in the public sphere. It is not realistic for Socrates to believe that the government of Athens could progress so that good people hold the power, when he has shown that in his own experience and observations it is not safe for good people to hold public positions.

Athens could also be seen as a place where they educated their citizens. Socrates understood that he would not be the man who he is today, without Athens. Like anything, a child would not willingly do harm on a parent, especially if they receive love and protection, and no harm in return. This parental versus child relationship is quite similar to the relationship Socrates had with Athens. The people of Athens could have assumed that Socrates would try to escape and that his death sentence would not follow through, but Socrates did not see this as an important factor. He believed that if he escaped, it would hinder the image of Athens because he would not be following their laws, which might influence the citizens to also break the laws of Athens. People with a lot of influence, have a lot of followers, for example, the people of Athens. If Socrates, supposedly the wisest man were to escape from prison and his death sentence, other people might think it is fine to disobey Athens as well. On the other hand, the citizens expected him to escape, but the fact that he stayed in prison to face his death sentence shows how seriously he took subjects like harming others and obeying the state to heart. Another objection to this argument could be, that Socrates was falsely accused and was harmed when he was truly innocent, he did not commit any of the crimes he was accused of, but Socrates still had the opportunity to a fair trial, he just did not use

Socrates traveled from one group to another visiting wise politicians, poets, and craftsmen, making enemies out of each group. After talking to the “wise” men Socrates realized they were all arrogant for thinking themselves wise. Because Socrates knew he was not wise he believed he was better off then them. In the end it was a representative from each group that charged Socrates with the crimes that got him condemned to death. This "occupation" consumed his leisure as well as his finances. Socrates told the court at his trail: "I live in great poverty because of my service to the god"(6). Socrates compared himself to a gadfly, and the city of Athens a steed he was just trying to stir into life (11). When a horsefly bites me I squash it, and that is exactly what the city of Athens did to Socrates. Instead of squashing him they made him drink poison, a little bit less messy. Socrates was a gadfly by questioning Athenians on subjects they rarely talked about, making them think about something they normally wouldn’t. He did his questioning out in the open where Athenians congregated so the public could observe and hopefully think on whatever subject that was being talked about. Socrates would question respectable Athenians making them look stupid too a crowd, because they would not know what to say. Making the person being questioned very angry towards Socrates for putting them in such a position. Socrates

In book VI of The Republic, Plato uses Socrates as his mouthpiece to reveal the ideal city. Plato points out that the idea city is based on the foundations of three basic forms. Consequently, these three forms are manifested in the individuals that make up the city. The functioning of the city will thus depend on the analogy of the structures within the city and within the souls of the people. The main purpose of this paper is to analyze the argument by Socrates with respect to the three forms in the city and in the soul. Additionally, the paper seeks to analyze the rationale behind Socrates’ comparison and subsequent establishment of analogy between the forms in the city and the forms in the city in the context of justice. The paper also