Socrates Vs Socrates

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 is believed to be one of the greatest philosophers of all time and he is credited as being the founder of western philosophy. This paper will explain some of his views to the most fundamental questions of today’s age. These questions will include topics about morality, the human condition, solution, and death. After Socrates’ views on these topics are explained, a critique will be done on his answers. I will start out by explaining exactly who Socrates is, and the time that he lived in. To start out, we will first examine Socrates’ view on morality.

In The Apology of Socrates, Socrates is defending himself in his own trial, supposedly trying to avoid the death penalty for multiple infractions on the city of Athens and its’ society. He argues that the jurors if they were to convict him, that they would be the ones that would be harmed in doing so; not Socrates. This explanation of harm is contrary to many people’s belief of what the judicial system is supposed to accomplish. The role of the judicial system is to punish people for the crimes that they have committed and provided enough of a deterrent, so that the crimes will stop being committed.

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

A man facing an unjust execution is presented with another option: escape from prison and flee to another providence. Most men would eagerly take this chance to prolong their lives and continue their journey on earth. Most men would do anything to get revenge for the wrong that has been done to them. However, most men are not like Socrates. Socrates did not plead his case by eliciting pity from the jury for an old man and his poor family. He did not beg for a different sentence that would allow him to live. Instead, he let the jury come to its own conclusion while acting with virtue and integrity. He held fast to his principles by remaining in prison to face his execution because that is how a good and just person would behave. Socrates’ decision not to escape in Crito is consistent with his principle that the good and just person never does harm to a large extent because accepting his verdict allows him to reinforce the sanctity of law and to set a prime example for his peers.

Although, refusal to sacrifice rational thought wasn’t the only reason that Socrates wasn’t willing to accept the plea. Again, when confronting his own mortality Socrates announced to the jury that no man with a spark of decency “ought to consider life or death, the only thing he ought to consider... is whether he does right or wrong” (Apology, 515). For Socrates this idea of doing what is right is classified under the idea of justice, however; even Socrates has difficulty defining what justice is. Socrates attempts to define justice

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.

Socrates was a former infantryman, having fought in three campaigns during the war with Sparta, so it is no surprise that he believed justice should not be invoked by the citizens’ pleading. He

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

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 399 B.C.E. Athens, Socrates, one of the greatest axial philosophers, was charged with impiety and corruption of the youth by Meletus, Lycon, and Anytus. Socrates was convicted of these accusations and executed. Socrates was one of many great thinkers in Athens, which was experiencing a Golden age as the most progressive and learned democracy in Greece. Strangely, Athens executed Socrates for his speech, which contrasted with Athenian democratic values. Moreover, Socrates was seen as annoying to authorities of the time, but never considered threatening enough to receive punishment to Athens before this. In order for Socrates to be executed, Athens needed to have undergone a deep shift that changed perceptions of Socrates from a gadfly to a danger to society. As a result of a crippling defeat by Sparta in the Peloponnesian Wars, Athens was paranoid of threats to its democracy, Athenian citizens were looking for a scapegoat for their recent troubles, and Socrates made enemies out of powerful politicians and thinkers due to his irritating Socratic method and uncustomary beliefs, therefore, he was easy to blame and execute.

Socrates had a unique way of teaching and expressing his thoughts and ideas. He taught by constantly posing questions with the assumption that any person could approach the truth through logic if he set aside ingrained prejudice and received knowledge (Hattersley 17,18). His dialectic method of questioning consisted of a subject being broken down by one or more people, in search of the same truth but with differing views. Instead of merely trying to convince listeners, Socrates would approach others by questioning what they felt to be true and therefore would be able to determine that person’s true feelings and the basis for those feelings. Socrates was open to receive knowledge wherever he could find it, yet when he approached people who claimed to be wise, he found they really knew nothing. He would challenge preconceived opinions, based on the words of others and fallacious logic. Many felt that he was attacking their identity and security causing them to resent Socrates when he pointed this out. Due to his search for truth, Socrates would, eventually, pay the ultimate price. Socrates teaches us to assume nothing and to question everything. In scientific study today, this is a fundamental element of scientific study, starting with a theory and afterward refining it to the point of when a decisive conclusion is made.

Socrates’ views of death as represented in “The Trial and Death of Socrates” are irrevocably tied to his beliefs of what makes life significant. For Socrates, life must be examined through constant questioning and one must hold the goodness of life above all else. Consequently, even in the face of the un-good, or unjust in Socrates’ case as represented in his trial, it would not be correct to do wrong, return wrong or do harm in return for harm done. Therefore, no act should be performed with an account for the risk of life or death; it should be performed solely on the basis of whether it is good and right.

“Socrates’ positive influence touches us even today” (May 6) and we can learn a great deal about him from one of his students, Plato. It is in Plato’s report of Socrates’ trial a work entitled, Apology, and a friend’s visit to his jail cell while he is awaiting his death in Crito, that we discover a man like no other. Socrates was a man following a path he felt that the gods had wanted him to follow and made no excuses for his life and they way he lived it.