Socrates Apology And Crito Analysis

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 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

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

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.

More importantly, Socrates’s relationship to the state is made clear during the dialogue with his friend Crito, when speaking as if Socrates is the state himself. When asking how important the state is, the law asks; “Is your…country to be honored more than…all your ancestors…that it counts for more among the gods and sensible men, that you must worship it…?” Rather than a statement, Socrates makes his point that the law must be upheld, even in his case of a death sentence. It is important to note that Socrates accepted his fate, even though he felt the accusations against him were false. Yet, as if speaking on behalf of the law, recognized that escaping would only turn those untruthful indictments into the truth, and as a destroyer of laws; “You will strengthen the conviction of the jury that they passed the right sentence on you.” By the definition of the word martyr, as one who dies for a cause, in this instance the laws of the state,

In both Plato’s Apology and Crito, Plato presents Socrates arguments clearly and precisely. Socrates is wise man with a different perspective on life, which presents us with a mass of contradictions. Socrates is an expressive man, yet he never recorded any works. He is ignorant, but wrongfully convicted who is willing to fight his unjust execution. Behind these dilemmas is an opposition not often explored. Socrates is the most patriotic of philosophers, who is dedicated to his state. Exploring this contradiction between Socrates the loyal citizen and Socrates the philosophical man will help position Plato's arguments. Although, Socrates approach to his defense in my opinion is not the best, and is certainly not an apology.

One of the arguments that Socrates first shows throughout the Apology is that he is being guided by the work of his Gods. He says that he is not scared to be hated because he knows that many people in Athens only dislike

The irony of Plato’s Apology is that Socrates is not apologizing for his actions. Instead, he is merely defending them. Socrates is on trial for corrupting the youth, and believing in spirits that Athens does not. Socrates does not believe that his trial is fair because the accusations of the city are subjective, and he knows that he cannot win. Socrates shows willingness to break the law when he refuses to stop questioning because he is uncovering truths. Even though the State sees this at unlawful, his actions are helping improve the city. In Socrates’ Defense, he gives an example of him breaking the law when he refused to have ten generals arrested for not rescuing others. He felt that they were not at fault, and was willing to break the law even if it meant he could die. Socrates admits that if they offered to acquit him on the condition that he could no

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.

Throughout the readings of The Apology of Socrates and Crito I have found that Socrates was not a normal philosopher. It is the philosopher's intention to question everything, but Socrates' approach was different then most other philosophers. From one side of the road, Socrates can be seen as an insensitive, arrogant man. He did indeed undermine the laws so they fit his ideals, leave his family, and disregard the people's values. On the other side he can be seen as an ingenious man who questioned what many thought was the unquestionable. As he can be criticized for disregarding the many's ideals he can also be applauded for rising above the daily ways of popular thought. He

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 died after his attempt to persuade the Athenians by telling the truth during a time when truthfulness was of little concern. I found unit 3 to be extremely interesting because I never knew about the trial or death of Socrates. Socrates is known as the father of Greek Philosophy and was put on trial by citizens of Athens in 399 399 B.C.E. for allegedly corrupting the youth and Impiety. Unit 3 allowed me to examine the trial and learn about the attitudes of people in Athens during this era. The title of the dialogue I learned about was, The Apology. The Apology was dialogue written by Plato, one of Socrates student’s and admirers, in an attempt to defend Socrates’ reputation after his death. It is a description of the speech that Socrates gave when he was on trial for the alleged crimes. Learning about the trial of Socrates was interesting to me because it caused me to examine the way criminal indictments has changed over the years.

The word “philosophy” can be defined as someone’s theory as to how one should live their life. For Socrates, in Plato’s Apology and Crito, the concept of the human soul drives the actions in which he lives his life. His view of the purpose for one’s actions differs from that of his fellow Athenians, who viewed physical pleasures – money, status, power – as the most important objectives in life. Within his own argument to the Athenian jury against the importance of bodily pleasures, Socrates relates himself to Achilleus, a warrior in Homer’s Iliad, whose philosophies heavily coincide with the Homeric era: honor and glory are the motivating factors for how people should live their lives. For both groups of Greeks, the motivation for their actions heavily revolved around their self-interest; however, their reasoning is what differentiates them from each other. For the Homeric Greeks, honor centered as their motivation; though, men could not fulfil their desires without the justification from others. For Socrates, only through reason and rational investigation can one achieve their individual goal of preserving the soul. Even though each belief system differs in objective, and the avenue in which it is obtained, both philosophies center around the same thing: self-benefit.

“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.

Socrates then proceeds to have the laws ask a number of questions that appear increasingly comic and desperate. He has the laws adopt a style that is very self-consciously similar to his own manner of questioning in the dialogues. The laws attempt to lay claim to his birth as it was through the laws of the state that his parents met. All this serves the purpose of further developing the question of the justice of Socrates’ escape versus the injustice of his imprisonment. This section also brings the discussion back to the obligation of Socrates to follow the laws due to the hand they had in his upbringing. Here, however, the purpose is not simply obligation by association, but that he must follow the laws in the same way a slave is obliged to follow his master. It is not a matter of morality or damage to the