The Contributions Of Plato 's The Apology

The Apology and Phaedo by Plato are two different books describing what is like to be a philosopher per Socrates believes. These two books take place in two different scenarios in Socrates’ life, The Apology takes place in a court room where Socrates is to defend himself from false charges brought to him by Meletus who is acting as the prosecutor. Phaedo, on the other hand, takes place in a prison cell post judgment on the day of Socrates execution. Hence, The Apology and Phaedo appeared to display different philosophies: The Apology, Plato presented Socrates as wise for he knows that he knows nothing, hence he is seeking wisdom by questioning those who think they know more or something, just to find that they don’t know anything, therefore Socrates makes it his duty to make them look ignorant/stupid. Phaedo, Socrates focuses primarily on death and the immortality of the soul, hence he is seeking knowledge by devoting his final hours picking the minds of his friends to explain the role of a philosopher, which is preparing for death. Consequently, these two views are really the same, yet presented differently by Socrates, for in one he is defending his freedom and life using philosophy, hence he has only done what the Gods expected of him. From the other view, he resigned to his fate, for as a philosopher, he knows his soul will finally become liberated from the evils and limitations of the body to come to its divine state.

Plato’s Apology is the story of the trial of Socrates, the charges brought against him and his maintaining of his own innocence throughout the process. At the onset of the trial, Socrates appears to challenging the charges, which included corrupting the youth, challenging belief in the gods that were accepted and reveled by the State, and introducing a new religious focus, but also belittles his own significance and suggesting that he will not attempt to disprove that he participated in the actions maintained by the court. In essence, Socrates appears almost self-effacing, and his defense surprises even his accuser, Meletus. But by the end of the Apology, Socrates becomes almost a different person,

In the readings, “Plato’s Apology” translated by Benjamin Jowett and “Oedipus the King” translated by Robert Bagg we notice many similarities. Deeper analyzation of these texts deeper will allow the reader to foresee Socratic wisdom. Socratic wisdom is best defined as accepting ignorance, no matter how wise or knowledgeable you may be. We learn in the beginning of Oedipus the King that an oracle has told his biological father, that it is in his son’s fate to kill him, and marry his mother – the knowing of his fate leads to failure. If you believe that you know everything, your intellect can lead to your downfall.

In this reading Plato tells the story of Socrates and his trial which ultimately lead to his death sentence. Socrates was a 70 year old man at peace with his own mortality yet willing to face his accusers with an almost definite possibility of death to maintain his own integrity and beliefs and morality. He fully understood from the beginning of his trial what the sentence handed down would be yet on a level of honor and courage not seen in abundance in modern society he maintained his stance and delivered a compelling and convincing argument. He openly stated that he knew his actions had offended Meletus and

“Do not be vexed with me when I speak the truth. For there is no human being who will preserve his life if he genuinely opposes either you or any other multitude and prevents many unjust and unlawful things from happening in the city. Rather, if someone who really fights for the just is going to preserve himself even for a short time, it is necessary for him to lead a private rather than public life.”(Apology 31e-32a)

In the year 399 B.C., Socrates was put to trial for impiety and corrupting the youth. During the trial, Socrates had to deliver his defense speech, called an apology, which derives from the Greek word apologia which means to ‘speak in one’s defense’. There are two accounts of Socrates’ apology; Plato’s and Xenophon’s. The main difference between the two accounts is that Plato was present during the trail and paraphrased what was said. Xenophon, on the other hand, was not present but instead based his on Hermogenes’ reports before, during, and after the trail. Although both show Socrates to be incredibly pious, just, and accepting of death, they have many differences.

For centuries in literature, philosophers studied the idea of virtue to demonstrate the uphold of moral excellence and righteousness within characters. Eventually becoming a staple in Western literature, virtue can be described as the balance and imbalance of qualities specified by the philosopher Plato. He thought much of virtue, and eventually defined it according to the four criteria: courage, prudence, temperance, and justice. Plato portrayed courage as the showing of bravery in the midst of danger, prudence is one’s ability to show good judgment and to put other’s needs before their own; temperance is a person’s knowledge of when to show restraint and justice is when one gives to others what is owed to them. These characteristics not

Socrates was a very simple man who did not have many material possessions and spoke in a plain, conversational manner. Acknowledging his own ignorance, he engaged in conversations with people claiming to be experts, usually in ethical matters. By asking simple questions, Socrates gradually revealed that these people were in fact very confused and did not actually know anything about the matters about which they claimed to be an expert. Socrates felt that the quest for wisdom and the instruction of others through dialogue and inquiry were the highest aims in life. He felt that "The unexamined life is not worth living." Plato's Apology is the speech Socrates made at his trial. Socrates was charged with not recognizing the

Socrates believed the possession of virtue was a highly valued characteristic. Although Socrates gives no clear definition of virtue it can be inferred that he is referring to the moral responsibility to do the right thing despite your own personal interest. According to Socrates, an ideal leader should be virtuous in their decisions in order to create a society founded on justice. To Machiavelli it is more important to act like you

In Plato’s The Republic and The Apology, the topic of justice is examined from multiple angles in an attempt to discover what justice is, as well as why living a just life is desirable. Plato, writing through Socrates, identifies in The Republic what he thought justice was through the creation of an ideal city and an ideal soul. Both the ideal city and the ideal soul have three components which, when all are acting harmoniously, create what Socrates considers to be justice. Before he outlines this city and soul, he listens to the arguments of three men who hold popular ideas of the period. These men act to legitimize Socrates’ arguments because he finds logical errors in all of their opinions. In The Apology, a different, more down-to-Earth, Socrates is presented who, through his self-defense in court, reveals a different, even contradictory, view of the justice presented in The Republic. In this paper, the full argument of justice from The Republic will be examined, as well as the possible inconsistencies between The Republic and The Apology.

The most influential philosopher of the 5th century BCE is a man by the name of Socrates. His life and teachings are the foundation of Western Philosophy. Socrates was dedicated to reasoning and the development and investigation of the truth. Unpopular then, Socrates employed a strategy to pursue the truth by using dialectic. Socrates was one to question everything and anything less than the truth was received with more questions. Socrates never wrote anything down, and therefore any dialogues and teachings are dependent on his students Xenophon and Plato account. This gives rise to the Socratic Problem. What we do know, according to Plato’s Apology, is that Socrates’ divine mission is a complex one. Using two of Plato’s written accounts of

Plato’s “The Apology” takes places in Athens in 399 BC. Socrates, a natural philosopher, is put on trial and accused of failing to recognize the god of Athens, creating new deities, and corrupting the minds of the city youth. The Athenians, Anytus, Meletus, and Lycon fear that Socrates’ teachings lack respect for the legal customs and religious beliefs established in the city and could create a damaging effect on Athens’ community (Dan I.(n.d.). In this piece, Plato writes an account of Socrates’ speech attempting to defend himself. In this account, Socrates states that “An unexamined life is not worth living.” (Plato, n.d.). When saying this, Socrates claims that a person must examine themselves and determine the purpose of life, in order

“Every man ought to share in this sort of virtue, and the states could not exist if this were otherwise,” the sophist Protagoras informs Socrates in Protagoras (Plato, 31). Ancient Greek culture focused on the discussion of virtuous character for hundreds of years. Philosophical questions like: “What does it mean to be good?” raised the topic of virtues or morally beneficial traits. Although many were discussed and debated, there are three virtues that proved to be the most essential in Greek culture.

In the Republic of Plato, the philosopher Socrates lays out his notion of the good, and draws the conclusion that virtue must be attained before one can be good. For Socrates there are two kinds of virtue; collective and individual. Collective virtue is virtue as whole, or the virtues of the city. Individual virtue pertains to the individual himself, and concerns the acts that the individual does, and concerns the individual’s soul. For Socrates, the relationship between individual and collective virtue is that they are the same, as the virtues of the collective parallel those of the Individual. This conclusion can be reached as both the city and the soul deal with the four main virtues of wisdom, courage, moderation, and justice.

All along the history of man, there has been that big question of who or what determines what is moral. Ethics started to take shape when man began to question his actions and the reasons surrounding those actions. Am I doing the right thing? How do I know if it is the right? In a bid to explain the different ways in which individuals view morality, ethical theories evolved. There are five main theories; Intuitionism, Consequentialism, Deontological theory, Virtue ethics and Natural law. For the sake of this discussion, I will be focusing on Virtue Ethics. According to Aristotle, a virtue is “a trait of mind and character that helps us achieve a good life”. (Routledge, ND) Aristotle, like his predecessors, Socrates and Plato,