Socrates ' One Day At 399 B.c '

Socrates believed his integrity was more important to him. He was not going to give up his beliefs to please others. Socrates defends himself, saying the most important thing is “not to avoid death, but to avoid unrighteousness” (168). He told the jury if “[they] think by killing men” they can “prevent someone” (182) from thinking for themselves, they are wrong. Socrates spoke his mind, knowing that what he said in that moment could affect whether he was sentenced to death or not.

Socrates was a Western Ancient Athenian Greek philosopher who lived from 469 BCE until his death in 399 BCE. He was a student to another philosopher, Sophists, Socrates was different from most Greek philosophers he wanted to get at the truth and find out how one can truly be ‘good’ and moral in life. “To Socrates the soul is identified with the mind; it is the seat of reason and capable of finding the ethical truths, which will restore meaning and value of life” (ADD IN-TEXT CITATION SEMINAR). We continue to use many of Socrates teachings today, such as, ‘The Socratic method’, which is known as asking a question and within these questions you lead it to the answer you wanted to hear, many uses this as a teaching technique and is shown to be highly effective. A great number of Athenians looked up to Socrates and considered him the wise man of Athens, he had many followers whom would ask questions and seek answers. As popularity and following of Socrates grew so did accusations. The charges laid on Socrates by the Athenians were unjust and therefore his death was highly wrong in the eyes of true democracy that Athens was apparently known for. In this paper, I will discuss how Socrates was wrongfully convicted for the corruption of the youth despite having many young followers, introducing new Gods while still being considered an Atheist, and the main reason he was seen as a threat to Athens was that he brought change to the city.

Kenneth C. Blanchard, Jr. “The Enemies of Socrates: Piety and Sophism in the Socratic Drama.” The Review of Politics. 62.3 (2003): 421-449. Print.

Through several dialogues Plato gives readers accounts of Socrates’ interactions with other Athenians. While some may think of him as a teacher of sorts, Socrates is adamant in rejecting any such claim (Plato, Apology 33a-b). He insists that he is not a teacher because he is not transferring any knowledge from himself to others, but rather assisting those he interacts with in reaching the truth. This assistance is the reason Socrates walks around Athens, engaging in conversation with anyone that he can convince to converse with him. An assertion he makes at his trial in Plato’s Apology is at the center of what drives Socrates in his abnormal ways, “the unexamined life is not worth living for a human being” (38a). Socrates, through aporia, looks to lead an examined life to perfect his soul and live as the best person he can be. This paper looks to examine the ‘unexamined life’ and the implications rooted in living a life like Socrates’.

Socrates motives for not escaping could also be understood by his principles. His principle says, “And a good life is equivalent to a just and honorable one.”(1). Socrates believes and lives by doing well to himself and other people. Even though staying in prison would cause him physical damage, he is willing to sacrifice his body in order to save his soul. Because of his belief in living an honorable life, Socrates reasons to stay in prison rather than escaping.

Socrates should not escape from prison to avoid his death sentence because he would be breaking the law which ultimately led to him straying away from his own principles. He was a person who believed in what was just and doing what was morally correct. If he were to escape from prison, he would essentially be harming others and the State. He thought through harming others, he would be harming himself and his soul, so Socrates did not believe in harming others and thought it was unjust and morally wrong. Even though Socrates had the opportunity to escape and he was given plenty of reasons from his friends to do so, he did not want to go against what he believes in and his philosophy. He could not live a life where he would have to stop

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

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

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

Socrates was a thinker of ancient Greece, and someone whose wisdom had become a popular topic of discussion and conflict while he was alive. As Socrates was growing up, the government of Athens had been trying to instill and utilize a working democratic system in which the people of Athens had a voice in the assemblies. Although this “voice” was granted to some, not everyone was able to have a say. Socrates was accused of being impious toward the Gods of Athens, trying to corrupt and bring down the governmental system, and corrupting the minds of the youths.

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.

It must be considered then, that perhaps the problem was not Socrates’ perceived offenses. Corrupting the youth, manipulating arguments, and possible heresy were secondary to their real fear. The problem was the mistrust the city had in the art of philosophy. Philosophy was a new thing, and though Athens was politically progressive, it was still quite traditional. Philosophy went against all their traditions. Socrates compared himself to “a sort of gadfly, given to the state” (Apology, 11). As a gadfly bites a horse, waking it up and keeping it awake, Socrates woke the city of Athens to philosophy. The horse is uncomfortable, and wants the gadfly to go away, putting Socrates, and philosophy in general, in danger. Socrates’ crimes of corrupting the young, making the worse argument the better, and particularly “search[ing] into things under the earth and in heaven” are the things the city must be awoken to (Apology, 2). The city does not want to wake up to this. They do not want Socrates teaching them things that go against their traditions. They are not used to it, and it makes them uncomfortable. Thus, they react irrationally. They do not want the philosopher, they don’t think they need it. Though the city does not think they need philosophy, their reaction to Socrates makes it clear that they do. Philosophy is the exploration of new ideas. The word translated means love of wisdom. Socrates embraced the definitions, applied them, and called others to do the same. The city rejected the call, making it more evident that they needed the call. They needed the philosopher, but they killed him instead. They needed the philosopher because they didn’t want the

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

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 most circumstances ending the life of a criminal as their punishment usually reflects the magnitude of the crimes that they committed, crimes that often involve the deaths of others or equally heinous actions, yet one historical example stands out for not following this rule. In 399 BC, in Athens, Greece, two men put a meek philosopher named Socrates on trial for two crimes he purportedly committed: not following state gods and corrupting the youth. These charges alleged against Socrates reflected the general sentiment of Athenians regarding Socrates; namely that he was an atheistic charlatan. The jury found Socrates guilty of these crimes and executed, a punishment that does not logically befit the supposed crimes that he committed. No sane or logical jury would find him guilty of such vague claims, especially in such a vehemently democratic polis as Athens, and they would never have executed Socrates for such meager offenses, nonetheless he was. Execution was especially unnecessary because Socrates himself was on the verge of death; he was in his seventies in the Greek era, so he was bound to die soon anyways. The central focus, then, is of understanding how on Earth the birthplace of democracy could have gone so awry and when they tried, convicted, and executed Socrates. Athens sentenced Socrates to death because his beliefs were against the flow of the changing Athenian ideological landscape, people regarded him as a pompous, elitist charlatan who impugned their core