Socrates believes that a prince ought to be a citizen philosopher who sets the example for all citizens through his/her character. Socrates posits to his friend Crito that “the considerations you [Crito] raise about expense and reputation and bringing up children… are the concerns of the ordinary public, who think nothing of putting people to death, and would bring them back to life if they could, with equal indifference to reason” (Crito 87). This “indifference to reason” that Socrates claims about the public amounts to an indictment of the leadership in Athens at the time. This excerpt shows how the princes who ruled Athens, who acted unjustly, who created the institutional climate of execution and fear (which Socrates is a victim of), transferred these ways of thinking and acting to the people of Athens. Socrates then paints a picture instead of how a prince should act, and what their role should be by describing his own work: “I busied myself all the time on your behalf, going like a father or an elder brother to see each one of you privately, and urging you to set your thoughts on goodness” (The Apology 57b). This encompasses his role as a citizen philosopher when he served in the Athenian government before the Spartans toppled the democratic regime. He acted with the virtues of compassion, generosity, and faith, instead of the Machiavellian virtues of prowess, deceit, and cruelty. In this matter, he was both a just leader and a philosopher, setting the standards for
According to Socrates, the people who lead the society were the philosophers or the people who believed in truth, if a person is unaware of the truth then they were not allowed to rule. The concept of morality basically depends on association, interdependence and organization. Its major component is the goodness. When Crito visited Socrates telling him that he owns enough money to bribe the guards so that he can escape the jail; he rejected his idea saying that it’s better to die rather than living a life full of unjust. Socrates was against the breaking of law, that’s why he denied Crito’s offer. He believed that people should follow their own path instead of following majority because it is not necessary that majority are always right and minority are always wrong. His death penalty was unjust to him by the system of law. The charges against him was not that serious to be given death penalty. It was considered as the unjust application of law. Crito presented few
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
First, he said a leader must be liked by enough of his people to avoid any type of uprising. He believed that anyone who spoke out against the prince must be gotten rid of. This is a major violation of one’s rights and something Socrates would have been outraged by. Plato starts The Apology by discussing how Socrates would teach the youth about his ideal government while openly criticizing the government of Athens. Socrates believed this type of free speech was necessary to form a fair and moral nation. Socrates also uses his trial as a symbol of free speech as he continued to speak out against the government there. He certainly would not have supported Machiavelli’s attempts to suppress free speech. Socrates goes so far as to say, “I made my defense speech like this: I much prefer to die having made my defense speech in this way than to live in that way” (The Apology 20). Here we see that Socrates is willing to die if it means he can speak freely. He truly thought free speech was the only way to check the government’s power and for the people to have a voice. At the time of his trial, speaking out against the Athenian government was almost unheard of and was considered a form of treason. Socrates wanted to use his trial as a way to criticize his leaders in the hope that more people would follow his lead. He believed free speech was necessary to
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 a defender of civic virtue, the significance of obligation and authority of one’s representative government epitomizes the magnitude of respect that Socrates had for Athenian Jurisprudence, irrespective of the fact that he was prosecuted against. In the accounts of the Apology and Crito, there exists a plethora of evidence that demonstrate Socrates’s adherence of institutionalized authority. His loyalty of the Athenian State derives from his notion that the obligation to surrender to the law manifests a just society. One may ask, “how is it possible for a persecuted man to continue to profess allegiance to a polity that sought his trial and execution”? Though many would not have the capacity to sustain such integrity, Socrates had his reasons in
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.
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
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,
Socrates and Niccolo Machiavelli were both incredibly influential in the development of Western philosophical thought, specifically in relation to ethics in politics. Machiavelli’s text The Prince, written during a period of political turmoil in Italy, outlines the necessary steps a prince must take to obtain both power and authority. Plato’s The Last Days of Socrates assesses the moral and ethical guidelines an ideal leader should possess through the beliefs and teachings of Socrates. While both texts had similar objectives, their opinions were quite contradictory. Socrates would have found Machiavelli’s concept of the “Prince”, and the government he creates to be both unethical and fundamentally flawed. Socrates places higher value on the maintenance and creation of justice, while Machiavelli stresses the process of obtaining and preserving power, unethical or not. Due to their differences in their ideas of virtue, knowledge, and justice it can be concluded that Socrates would not be supportive of the government in which The Prince proposes.
For these two articles that we read in Crito and Apology by Plato, we could know Socrates is an enduring person with imagination, because he presents us with a mass of contradictions: Most eloquent men, yet he never wrote a word; ugliest yet most profoundly attractive; ignorant yet wise; wrongfully convicted, yet unwilling to avoid his unjust execution. Behind these conundrums is a contradiction less often explored: Socrates is at once the most Athenian, most local, citizenly, and patriotic of philosophers; and yet the most self-regarding of Athenians. Exploring that contradiction, between ¡§Socrates the loyal Athenian citizen¡¨ and ¡§Socrates the philosophical critic of Athenian society,¡¨ will help
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
Socrates claims to be a selfless benefactor of the polis in that he had exhausted his private resources in the pursuit of the public good (23b-c, 30a, 31a-c). Because he does what is good for his fellow citizens for whom he feels regard despite the danger to which this exposes him, Socrates claims to be a benefactor of the Athenians. He refers with pride to his record of military service and underlines that it was service to the democracy: “When the commanders that you elected to command me stationed me at Potidaea and Amphipolis and Delion, I remained there like anyone else, and ran the risk of death” (28e). He is an honorable citizen who disregards death and preaches that “The difficulty, my friends, is not to avoid death, but to avoid unrighteousness; for that runs faster than death.” He has demonstrated that he is, by his own right, a patriotic citizen who cares deeply about the good of his polis and one who consistently acts in what he sees as his city’s best interests; but he has also shown also that, in light of his own definition of patriotism, Socrates must be regarded as a uniquely patriotic Athenian.
the blazing one, spending time with the Empress and building up a very strong Platonic friendship. The Empress comes to realize that her improvements were for naught and, if anything, created contentions and divisions among all of the "-men." She comes to the Duchess for advice because she fears that they will rebel against the monarchy. The Duchess advises her to revert to the original form of government that seemed to work with one law, one religion, one language and one monarch. The Empress takes her advice and all is right in the world once again—begging readers to inquire as to the Empresses’ reasoning for her change; why change a system that had already worked? Additionally the Empress actually enters our world (her own native
contemporaries, disapproving of their preoccupation with gaining status and wealth, and claiming it best “not to think more of practical advantages than of [one’s] mental or moral well-being . . . in the case of the State or of anything else” (Apology 36c). He scorns the materialism of Athens’ powerful figures, and their obsession with power and status. These judgements would suggest that Socrates’ ideal ‘Prince’ would not only never do injury upon others, but would in fact be entirely unconcerned with gaining political status. “The true champion of justice,” he insists, “must necessarily confine himself to private life and leave politics alone” (Apology 32a). This attitude represents the antithesis of all of Machiavelli’s advice in The Prince, although, as already discussed, Machiavelli does not claim that a Prince should be a champion of justice, another point on which Socrates would disagree. In addition to land and power, Machiavelli’s Prince, as previously mentioned, is also chiefly concerned with his own “security and wellbeing” (Prince 57). In this ruthless world which Machiavelli envisions, a Prince must protect himself and his state at all turns from power-hungry nobles, a dissatisfied populace, and foreign invaders. While this Prince is likely to think of “security and wellbeing” in terms of the security and wellbeing of his state and his person, Socrates claims that the wellbeing of the person is above all a matter of the soul, encouraging the citizens of Athens