The Argument Against The Status Que Of Socrates

Socrates has a unique position in the history of philosophy. On one hand he is the most influential on another he is the least known. In his later life he is seen to stalk the streets barefoot, to spite shoemakers. He went about arguing and questioning people and revealing inconsistencies in their beliefs. He began teaching students but never accepted payments for doing so. This was possible because of the inheritance left by his father. Socrates wrote nothing of himself so we are dependent upon the works of both his students and associates who present a view as close to

Socrates was quite a unique individual for his time in the sense that he seemed to question everything and everyone and brought light to ideas that challenged the identity and way of life for many in Athens. This caused a great deal of outrage throughout Athens because Socrates philosophy’s were alien to many at the time. That is one of the reasons Socrates could be considered an agitator because he generated the type of response typical to that of a agitator. Usually when an individual starts to bring forth ideas about ways of living that threaten the current system people are so used to a great deal of fear and discomfort will arise among a majority of the population or just among the most powerful class of people who will then try to convince

In the wake of the Peloponnesian War, the father of modern western philosophy was put to death by order of the city he called home. Socrates was found guilty for corrupting the minds of the youth and impiety and was sentences to death for his crimes by majority vote. In the many centuries after the death of Socrates, it has been debated whether or not he was guilty and should or should not have been put to death. Using the works of Plato’s Republic, Crito, and the Apology to define what is justice according to Socrates, he was guilty. While he was guilty, the city putting him to death showed the ability of a direct democracy to act unjustly to harm a just citizen of their city.

Socrates Athenians who would usual disagrees with the government have to be obliged to or convince them to do as they are told. When Socrates were philosophizing he didn’t convince the government to continue so now by not saying anything he is going to be put to

Socrates isn’t using his freedoms how he should

Anywhere he goes, anyone he meet, he asked questions and arguments interrogation to see if that person is the wisest. His action inadvertently offended the self-esteem of others so the number of people jealous of him is increasing. Everything went on like this for decades until Socrates nearly 70 years old, the people of Athens are too fed up with his philosophies. An Athens citizen named Meletus wrote to the court accused him of being responsible for the spread of atheism along with Spreading free thought and the liberal lifestyle should have corrupted and decadent youth

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

Socrates was a classical Greek philosopher, credited with founding modern philosophy. He was a genius who created Socratic irony and the Socratic method, as well as posthumously influencing all of modern society and government since his death in 399 BC. Socrates’ ideas of politics and government are still referenced today. He was a groundbreaking mind that was accused on the grounds of corrupting the youth of Athens, as well as impiety. I believe that he was rightfully convicted in accordance with the laws of ancient Athens.

Why would a seventy-year-old philosopher be put to death for what he was teaching in a society enjoying more freedom and democracy than any the world had ever seen? Plato (427-347 B.C.E.) is especially important to the understanding of the trial of Socrates because he, along with Xenophon, wrote the only two surviving accounts of the defense (or apology) of Socrates. Plato’s account is generally given more attention by scholars of the two authors because he, unlike Xenophon, actually attended the one-day trial of Socrates in Athens in 399 B.C.E. Both Plato and Chaerophon, another important witness present at the trial, knew how Socrates engaged in the Athenian intellectual community, what he shared with its members, and how original it may have been. Plato has been both a pupil and somewhat ardent admirer of Socrates, and for this reason his version of the trial may have been somewhat biased in favor of one whom he regarded as a great hero. At any rate, historians may be fairly certain that, even though Socrates has been to some extent idealized by his pupil, the account given represents what Plato believed to be true about his teacher. The turbulent history of Athens in the several years preceding his trial had a lot to do with the decisions to prosecute and ultimately convict Socrates. An examination of that history may not provide final answers, but it does provide

Laws are not standard. They changes from state to state and obviously from country to country. Athenians judicial system condemned to death a man for having a different belief than theirs and in this essay I claim that Socrates’ acceptance of death under a failing judicial system is unvirtuous although he tries to make it seem as a virtuous and civic act. Socrates aberration for obeying the law is pointless. If he wants to be virtuous he must go against the system. He needs to continue fighting back and convince others to join his cause. Evidence will be shown from Apology and Crito to prove this claim. Resistance as civic virtue -- isn't death a resistance?

So who was Socrates? He was considered a classical Greek Athenian Philosopher, and at times referred to as the wisest Greek of all. He was an enigmatic figure renowned for his sustained inquiry into the field of ethics, and he practiced philosophy openly, which primarily focused on morality (Ancient Greeks). This

Relate it to audience/Attention getter: Some of you may ask who exactly was Socrates and what did he do? Socrates was a greek philosopher born in 470 bc and is also considered the father of western philosophy. He was sentenced to death at the age of 70 for denying the gods recongnized by the state and introducing new divinities and corrupting the young.

Ancient Athens was the growing site of culture. Among many of the discoveries and improvements that were made, philosophy was one of them. Great thinkers were able to expand their knowledge to new measures. Socrates was one of these philosophers, and he had different ideals than most people of that time. He was sentenced to death by two charges brought against him, because of his open mindedness. The first was that Socrates corrupted the youth, and the second was that he did not believe in the Greek gods.

Socrates was one of the “founding fathers” of the discipline of philosophy. He made it his “job”. He saw it as a tool to improve the lives of Athens citizens. He understood that people are naturally good and only do “bad” things out of ignorance or misunderstanding. He believed that by using logic and reson, people can make moral choices and therefore live a better life. For him Philosophy was a tool to use for learning and teaching.

The Greek Philosopher Socrates once famously stated in his trial, “The unexamined life is not worth living”. He was charged with impiety and corruption of the youth, and said trial was recorded by Plato. Yet he was not an evil man. He was an axial thinker, seeking truth over wisdom, and virtue over knowledge. He encouraged others to examine life, and constantly question what the people believed to be true. Socrates came of age in 5th Century B.C.E Greece. The Grecians had proven themselves victorious over the Persians, and Athens, the strongest city-state in Greece, and was thrusted into an axial transformation. Athenians sought to gain knowledge of the controlled aspects of life; Such as why and how humans do the things they do. Athens prided itself on this axial way, of which their prized possession, democracy, was born. Yet this transformation was brought to an abrupt halt by the Peloponnesian Wars. Athens grew fearful that Sparta would threaten their growth, and instead halted their own transformation by throwing themselves into the Peloponnesian Wars. Athens suffered defeat at the hands of Sparta, in which they lost everything they found dear, and Athens was thrown into an axial dark age. Yet, Socrates was out of his times, and refused to change. To a generation of Athenians who needed certainty most, he brought about uncertainty and fear. Tragically ironic, he believed that questioning life was the only way to live, but it evidently brought about his death.