Socrates Response To Ceibes

The purpose of this paper is to explain Socrates' argument that there is good hope that death is a blessing and why it is a sound enough argument (40 c). This will be done by asking six questions to understand and evaluate any argument. From there the conclusion will be met as to why Socrates' argument in the apology is a sound enough one.

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

In “The Apology”, Plato’s written account of Socrates’ trial, Socrates rhetorical goal is not only to exonerate himself from the crimes he’s been accused of, but, more importantly, to show how he is devoted to the pursuit of justice. Socrates shows this by demonstrating his determination for doing what is righteous, rather than focusing on being abdicated from his crimes. Throughout his speech, Socrates uses an emotional appeal to establish himself as being on the side of truth, justice, and wisdom, and shows that by trusting in his words, the jurymen would also be in support of these principles. Furthermore, Socrates is able to establish his support of the truth and justice by addressing specific rumors and accusations set against him using an appeal to logic. These logical appeals are used to show how his defense is the truth and that the allegations against him are opinion, rumor, and unjust.

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

The phrase “I know that I know nothing”, often referred to as the Socratic paradox is famous saying that has been derived from Plato’s account of Socrates in The Apology. It demonstrates Socrates moral philosophy that true wisdom is accepting one’s ignorance. In Delphi of Ancient Greece, there is a sacred temple that lived a woman who has been known to be possessed by the gods, and thus able to obtain answers from them. In 440 BC, the Oracle of Apollo declared that “Socrates was the wisest”, and in great disbelief it made Socrates feel obliged to seek the true meaning of her remark. Socrates did this by “interviewing everyone who had a reputation for knowledge” to prove the oracle was wrong. For instance, in Plato’s Euthyphro, Socrates

As we discussed previously Theory of Forms, states that everything in the world fits into two categories, the abstract universals, things such as beauty itself, equality itself, and piety itself and the second category is concrete particulars, things that exist in space and time, such as sunsets, music, and people. However Socrates derives his confidence from a combination of the argument of opposites and the theory of forms. This Argument from the Theory of Forms for the immortality of the soul: If we assume the theory of forms is true, and there is a form of Life itself, then souls are the sources of life because they participate in the form of life, then souls cannot participate in the opposing form of life, death, at the same time, if the principle of non-contradiction is true. Now since death is the opposite of life, souls can’t participate in it, therefore souls are immortal. Socrates makes these claims to comfort his friends and followers who are concerned

In Book 1, Cephalus basically views justice as being an honest individual while Polemarchus insists that justice brings “benefit to friends and harm to enemies” (Plato, 332e). On the other hand, Thrasymachus believes that justice is a term that the superiors have created because it benefits them, but Socrates refers to justice as an essential to living a good live and having a healthy soul. I defiantly relate the views of these four characters to other groups in Greek society. For instance, in my opinion, Cephalus represents the old-school, innocent mentality of several Greek elders who just wanted to make good relations with others and remain as truthful as possible. Meanwhile, Polemarchus’ view on justice symbolizes those smart, well-known

There are times in every mans life where our actions and beliefs collide—these collisions are known as contradictions. There are endless instances in which we are so determined to make a point that we resort to using absurd overstatements, demeaning language, and false accusations in our arguments. This tendency to contradict ourselves often questions our character and morals. Similarly, in The Trial of Socrates (Plato’s Apology), Meletus’ fallacies in reason and his eventual mistake of contradicting himself will clear the accusations placed on Socrates. In this paper, I will argue that Socrates is not guilty of corrupting the youth with the idea of not believing in the Gods but of teaching the youth to think for

In Plato’s: The Apology Socrates was charged and put on trial for impiety, as well as accused of committing many other crimes. I will first explain the most important issues of why Socrates was sent to death. Then I will argue the position that Socrates is innocent, and should not be have been found guilty.

The accusers, Meletos, Anytos, and Lycon, are all young and trying to make a name for themselves. They begin by telling everyone not to be deceived and to take caution because Socrates is a “clever speaker”. According to Socrates, the difference between him and his accusers is that he speaks the truth. He is on trial for two items, which include, corrupting the youth and impiety. Socrates tells everyone that he has no experience with the court and he will speak the way he is used to by being honest and direct. Socrates explains that his behavior is from the oracle of Apollo at Delphi.      

Socrates spent his time questioning people about things like virtue, justice, piety and truth. The people Socrates questioned are the people that condemned him to death. Socrates was sentenced to death because people did not like him and they wanted to shut him up for good. There was not any real evidence against Socrates to prove the accusations against him. Socrates was condemned for three major reasons: he told important people exactly what he thought of them, he questioned ideas that had long been the norm, the youth copied his style of questioning for fun, making Athenians think Socrates was teaching the youth to be rebellious. But these reasons were not the charges against him, he was charged with being an atheist and

Philosophy can be defined as the pursuit of wisdom or the love of knowledge. Socrates, as one of the most well-known of the early philosophers, epitomizes the idea of a pursuer of wisdom as he travels about Athens searching for the true meaning of the word. Throughout Plato’s early writings, he and Socrates search for meanings of previously undefined concepts, such as truth, wisdom, and beauty. As Socrates is often used as a mouthpiece for Plato’s ideas about the world, one cannot be sure that they had the same agenda, but it seems as though they would both agree that dialogue was the best way to go about obtaining the definitions they sought. If two people begin on common ground in a conversation, as Socrates often tries to do, they are

The problem with Socrates concerns the problem with the role of value and reason. Nietzsche believes that the bulk of philosophers claim that life is a corrupt grievance for mankind. Nietzsche reasoned that these life deniers were decadents of Hellenism, as a symptom of some underlying melancholy. For someone to paint life in such a negative light they must have suffered a great deal through the course of their own life. Furthermore, these no-sayers agreed in various physiological ways and thus adopted the same pessimistic attitudes towards life. Socrates was ugly, alike decadent criminals and by ways of these similarities was decadent as well. Nietzsche also claims ugliness as a physiological symptom of life in its decline supported by studies in phenology.

Aristophanes’ Clouds, if read hastily, can be interpreted as a mindless satyr play written in 419 BCE. Yet the chorus warns the reader not to expect the play to have farcical ploys like “a hanging phallus stitched on” the actors to evoke a laugh, but has underlying seriousness as “she [the play] comes in trusting only her words” (Clouds 538-44). Even if the play does use some low devices, the play’s message is sophisticated and can be read as a warning to Socrates. Aristophanes is a “friendly critic” of Socrates and warns Socrates to change his ways for Athens and for the good of himself (Whidden). Plato’s Symposium and especially his Apology of Socrates justify the claims made in Clouds about the dangers of philosophy and Socrates to

Socrates believed that the greatest quality of man is examining himself and others, to try to grow and reach our utmost