Socrates Rhetoric Essay

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 argument of affinity, Socrates asked “what kind of thing is likely to be scattered? On behalf of what kind of thing should one fear this, and for what kind of things should one not fear it?” (Plato, 78b, pp. 116). Socrates asked this question because he wants to prove that the soul is not a composite, that it remains unchanged, thus cannot be destroyed. Socrates gave an example of beauty, such as the beauty of people or clothing. Socrates asked Cebes if the beauty of an individual can be compared to the beauty of another person. Cebes agreed that beauty of an individual can be compared, thus their beauty can change. Socrates explained that this type of beauty if visible, and because there is visible beauty, Socrates argued that there

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

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.

Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) was a Greek philosopher, educator, and scientist. He was able to combine the thoughts of Socrates and Plato to create his own ideas and definition of rhetoric. He wrote influential works such as Rhetoric and Organon, which presented these new ideas and theories on rhetoric. Much of what is Western thought today evolved from Aristotle's theories and experiments on rhetoric.

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 response to Thrasymachus, Glaucon, and Adeimantus, Socrates seeks to show that it is always in an individual’s interest to be just, rather than unjust. Thus, one of the most critical problems regarding the Republic is whether Socrates defends justice successfully or not. Socrates offers three arguments in favor of the just life over the unjust life: first, the just man is wise and good, and the unjust man is ignorant and bad; second, injustice produces internal disharmony which prevents effective actions; and lastly, virtue is excellence at a thing’s function and the just person lives a happier life than the unjust person, since he performs the various functions of the human soul well. Socrates is displeased with the argument because a sufficient explanation of justice is essential before reaching a conclusion as to whether or not the just life is better than the unjust life. He is asked to support justice for itself, not for the status that follows. He propositions to look for justice in the city first and then to continue by analogy to discover justice in the individual. This approach will allow for a distinct judgment on the question of whether the just person is happier than the unjust person. Socrates commences by exploring the roots of political life and constructs a hypothetical just city that gratifies only fundamental human necessities. Socrates argues

Socrates’s argument began by introducing his stance: “Doing what’s unjust is actually the worst thing there is.” Polus staunchly believed that suffering what is unjust is worse than doing what is unjust. In the quote, “Isn’t suffering what’s unjust still worse?” , Polus counters Socrates stance. Polus agreed that doing what is unjust is more shameful than suffering

Socrates took great issue with the state of politics in Athens, going so far as to say that he is “one of a few Athenians—so as not to say I’m the only one, but the only one among our contemporaries—to take up the true political craft and practice the true politics”. Further, he claims that unlike politicians, he does “not aim at gratification but at what’s best”. Socrates’ unwavering devotion to justice and questioning within the private sphere and openness to talking with anyone make him a unique politician because he can purify politics in Athens while avoiding the pitfalls of the public sphere, although his “true politics” does have limitations. To illustrate this I will show that: (1) despite not being in the assembly, Socrates practices a form of politics because he interacts with a large swath of the Athenian population; (2) He views good politics as fighting injustice, which his “true politics” allows him to do more effectively than his contemporaries in the assembly; (3) An unwavering commitment to justice in the manner of Socrates is difficult to maintain in a democracy (as is implied by (2)); (4) His practice of politics is imperfect because he performs some of the same actions he condemns politicians for.

The argument begins with Polus telling Socrates that rhetoric and oratory can give you great power and high regard. He likens their position to tyrants who do what they see fit. To this Socrates says, " I say, Polus,

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?”

In the Greek society, there was enough wine and spirits for Socrates and his buddies to philosophize on the world around them, beginning the conversation of what is just and not. Ideas transform throughout the conversations of Socrates, Adeimantus, and Glaucon in the Republic forming what justice is in the opinion of Socrates. This opinion, the city in speech, is challenged by Adeimantus and Glaucon but Socrates eloquently responds to their challenges. Socrates’ answers with his city of speech are effective against the challenges of Adeimantus and Glaucon because every human has a soul with decency that is almost impossible to deny.

“Men of Athens, I am grateful and I am your friend, but I will obey the god rather than you, and as long as I draw breath and am able, I shall not cease to practice philosophy, to exhort you and in my usual way to point out to any one of you whom I happen to meet: Good sir, you are an Athenian, a citizen of the greatest city with the greatest reputation for both wisdom and power; are you not ashamed of your eagerness to possess as much wealth, reputation, and honors as possible, while you do not care for nor give thought to wisdom or truth, or the best possible state of your soul?”

The underlying explanation for the apparent discrepancy between the character Socrates’ stance on politics in Plato’s Gorgias – that he is amongst the few that practice true politics (Gorg. 521 D) – and his stance in Plato’s Apology – that he does not practice what is often viewed as politics (Ap. 31 E) – is reliant upon the subtle distinction that Socrates makes between those two fields; between what politics truly is and the art of politics as it is commonly practiced. Further, this distinction itself is heavily reliant upon the role of ῥητορικός, or lack thereof, in the art of common politics and in the practicing of politics itself. This is made quite clear in the Gorgias.

Around the 6th century B.C.E small group of Greek philosopher stating to change their view or ideas from the supernatural explanations to intellectual alternatives. Many Greek philosophers lived in the city of Miletus. In this essay I will write about one of the earliest philosophers in Athens Socrates. Before I write about his life I would talk about his panel. Panel death of Socrates painted in oil in 1787 by French painter Jacques-Louis David. The panel shows that Socrates surrounded by few people and they were not happy about the government decision on Socrates. The people around him were crying and Socrates was not afraid to face the death.