Socrates Essay

By now you should understand and expect what Socrates is doing to prove his innocence, which is why it was important for me to clarify his defence for corrupting the young because he uses the same technique the whole trail. The start of this defence also starts of by Socrates acknowledging the allegations against him, but this time he asks Meletus if he thinks that he is corrupting the young by not acknowledging the Gods of the state and teaching them about new spiritual beings instead, to this Metetus says yes he does. Keep in mind the original accusation because that is what Socrates uses, the next critical question Socrates asks what does Meletus mean by these charges, is he being charged with teaching about different gods which would mean he has acknowledged the Gods and cannot be guilty of impiety or that is really trying to say that he believes in no Gods and that he is teaching the same to others. Well after realizing that Socrates could not be guilty if he admitted that Socrates was teaching about some God just not the ones acknowledged by the city so he had to say that he did not believe in any Gods. With this Socrates questions Meletus with the new assumption that if he does not believe in Gods then he must not believe that the moon and sun are gods, and Meletus response to this that yes he does not believe

Socrates was a Greek philosopher, who is one of the founders of western philosophy. Socrates never wrote down his ideas or thoughts; his student, Plato, wrote down his ideas and thoughts. Socrates was accused of expressing there were different Gods and he was brought to trial in 399.B.C.E. Socrates character, in the different passages I read, Euthyphro, Apology and Citro are a little contradictory. Also if the act of persuading the state is the only alternative to blind obedience, why did Socrates' in both of specifically in his defense and generally in his career make so little effort to persuade the people when they were acting unjustly? In this essay I hope to demonstrate how Socrates character contradicts in these different passages and

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.

Socrates was put on trial with a jury of his peers who were already biased against him. He could have fled, but he chose to face them. This showed fortitude. He was charged with not recognizing the gods, inventing deities, and corrupting the people of Athens. His first and most important counter was the fact that the Oracle of Delphi called him the wisest man. “He asked whether there was anyone wiser than I. The Pythia replied that no one was wiser” (Plato, 4). If the Greeks were so devoted to their

Everyone knows that Greeks invented democracy, but it was not democracy as we know it now-days. The charges that were made to Socrates would be ridiculous today, but in Ancient Greece, they were legitimate crimes. At that time, speaking of other gods, having different ideologies, disagreeing with Athenian politicians, etc. were seen as unacceptable. Socrates was believed to be that kind of man. Plato and Xenophon, two of Socrates students, claimed that because of Socrates openly criticized of Athenian politicians made him gain many enemies. Not to mention that at that time Ancient Greece went through a time of war, famine, loss, and plague. There was crisis in Athens and Socrates came in with his new teachings. Many of Athens thought that his teaching were corrupting the youth, the only people that could now bring Athens forward (cam.ac.uk). But were the accusations true? Was Socrates actually innocent? I believe he was. Three reasons why I believe Socrates was innocent was because Socrates did believe in Athenian gods, he didn’t actually corrupt the youth, and many of the bad things said of Socrates were rumors.

In 399 BC, when he was seventy years old, Socrates was called into court by three men: Meletus, a poet, Anytus, a politician, and Lycon, an orator. The specific charges were impiety (namely that he did not believe in the gods of Athens, and instead had introduced new gods), and corruption of the youth of the city. The account of Socrates’ trial is preserved in the Apology by Plato, a dialogue that ought not to be considered a verbatim report of Socrates’ defense but rather a literary work that, nonetheless, represents the basic arguments presented. The trial of Socrates, purportedly, lasted only a single day, ending in a pronouncement of guilt and a death sentence. Yet, the scrutiny over this controversial decision continues unabated to this day as many feel the trial was unjust, even under Athenian law.

Socrates was a Greek philosopher, who is one of the founders of western philosophy. Socrates never wrote down his ideas or thoughts, his students or compressors, Plato, wrote down his ideas and thoughts. Socrates was accused of expressing there were different Gods and he was brought to trial in 399.B.C.E. Socrates character, in the different passages I read, Euthyphro, Apology and Citro are a little contradictory. And if the act of persuading the state is the only alternative to blind obedience, why did Socrates' in both of specifically in his defense and generally in his career make so little effort to persuade the people when they were acting unjustly? In this essay I hope to demonstrate how Socrates character contradicts in these different passages and why didn't he persuade the people when the people were acting so unjustly.

The people of Athens do not believe Socrates to the wisest of them all despite the fact that the oracle said he is, so they should be the ones accused for being

Socrates was not guilty of the charges of corrupting the youth, or of not believing in the gods of Athens. Socrates said, drawing from Meletus’ answers about the youth that “…every Athenian improves and elevates them; all with the exception of myself; and I alone am their corrupter?” Assuming this is true it assumes that knowledge is inherently a good or bad thing. It takes the idea that teaching someone something “good” would make you a teacher, however teaching someone something “bad” would make you a corrupter. It forgoes the idea that all knowledge serves to help us reason. As for Socrates not believing in the gods of Athens, the main point he brings up in his defense is that after Apollo spoke to his friend through the priestess

Socrates, one of the great (if not the greatest) philosophers of his time was accused by the Athenian government on charges of: corrupting the youth and believing falsities about the gods. Both these charges were formal accusations. Simultaneously, Socrates was charged informally on making the weak argument appear stronger, and for—in a way—being a sophist. Though majority vote to execute Socrates silenced his fate, the morality behind their decision-making is ill equipped with rational evidence. There is an obvious disconnect between the power of the state (the Athenian law) and the morality surrounding Socrates’ position on the situation.

he has written this indictment against you as one who makes innovations in religious matters, he has come to slander you, knowing that such thing is easily misrepresented” (Plato 3). In light of the fact that both these men are public figures in Athens, Socrates refers to something called the ‘divine matters’ which Socrates believes in voice keeping him from doing anything. Being that this is his reason for his run-in with the law. However, as Socrates continues to ask questions he realized from Euthyphro’s self-importance and moral reasoning gives him the ability to persuade Euthyphro into rethinking some commencing ideas.

Socrates should be found guilty of impiety due to his lack of reverence in the gods. The meaning of impiety is when somebody questions the power or chooses to lack respect for the gods. As we look over Socrates’ life there is evidence of his breaching of piety. The first of which is his fundamental questioning and demeaning of the gods. Socrates believes that he is so great, that he is often greater than even the gods.

If he were still alive today, most people would just think Socrates to be a crazy old man, and they would proceed to ignore him. Alas, in times of Ancient Greece, things were not so black and white. At this point, Socrates was being accused of a few things, one of which was being described as “…a student of all things in the sky and below the earth…” An odd accusation to hear about today, but completely plausible in this day and age. By learning things other than the mythology that people were taught in Ancient Greece, such as science and logic, a person would be stating his or her denouncement belief in the gods. Practicing any other religion was most surely a death sentence in and of itself, so the idea of Socrates learning things against the gods was more than likely going to be perceived as treason against the gods themselves. Socrates’ counter to this is a weak one, and merely results in just a play on words. Socrates manages to convince Meletus to state that Socrates does indeed believe in spirits, whom are the “bastard children of the gods,” and, in his opinion, by Meletus stating that he believes in spirits, he is contradicting the

In his early Socratic dialogue the Apology, Plato presents Socrates’ philosophical defence of his role within the Athenian society. Herein, one of Socrates’ primary defences against the accusations levied against him is that if the Athenians condemn him to death they “won’t easily find another like [him]”(Apology, 30e). This bold statement is made in the context of Socrates’ argument that he is “a sort of gadfly, given to the city [state] by the God; and the state is like a great and noble steed … [I] am always fastening upon you, arousing and persuading and reproaching you. (30e)”. Hence, Socrates introduces the notion that he, as a philosopher, serves as a monitor for the state. A role that stimulates the state, one that facilitates and encourages a cross examination of the decision making. However, Socrates does recognize and insist that such a figure must be independent from politics and “fight for what’s just”(32a) in private rather than public. He suggests that had he engaged in politics, he would “have perished long ago”. Rationalizing this claim is his argument that if a philosopher - as he should - attempts to publicly admonish the state for the many “unjust and unlawful actions” that occur therein and prevent them from occurring, he would not be spared by the populace.

In ancient Greece, being a philosopher carried various implications, several of which were unfavorable. In a time when natural philosophers were accused for being non-believers in the traditional deities and sophists were defamed for selling their intellectual services for money, Socrates fit in neither category. Nonetheless, the moment Socrates decided to become an enquirer, or a philosopher of human nature, he was chastised. His enemies, men he had either insulted or embarrassed, sought vengeance and in their process to do so, tried to define him. Accused of being an atheist and a corruptor of the youth, Socrates was viewed harshly by the society he lived in, but, despite this, his true nature revealed itself through his words and Plato’s dialogues. His prosecutors aimed to vilify his name and profession, and ultimately sentence him to death, a goal they eventually completed, but the accusations were not definitive of who he was. Socrates was a philosopher, first and foremost, attempting to find the reasons for various phenomenon, but he was also a self-professed prophet, indirectly given a prophecy from the gods, determined to use dialectic to bring about self-awareness in his fellow citizens. His ideologies, thus, became the building blocks for the philosophers of the generations succeeding him.