The Socratic Methods In The Apology By Socrates

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

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,

The Apology was written by Plato as an account of the defense that Socrates presented during the trial in which he was condemned to death. Socrates gave this apologia, or defense of one’s actions, against the accusations that he did not believe in any gods, and that he was corrupting the young men of Athens. Not being as skillful in the art of oratory as his accusers, Socrates admitted that he would, as plainly as possible, present only truthful and logical refutes to the accusations that were against him. Being wise in the way of rhetoric, Socrates used pathos, ethos, and logos to argue in his defense. Although ultimately executed, Socrates masterfully defended himself in court and proved that he was a man of both virtue and wisdom.

   In any case of law, when considering truth and justice, one must first look at the validity of the court and the system itself.  In Socrates' case, the situation is no different.  One may be said to be guilty or innocent of any crime, but guilt or innocence is only as valid as the court it is subjected to.  Therefore, in considering whether Socrates is guilty or not, it must be kept in mind the norms and standards of Athens at that time, and the validity of his accusers and the crimes he allegedly committed.  Is Socrates guilty or innocent of his accusations?

Socrates is at the age of seventy and appearing in a law court for the first time. For the people of Socrates time is accusing Socrates, for miss leading the youth corrupting them and boasting about being wise, causing him to become very unpopular. Socrates says to the jury I am going to speak the whole truth, for it is me by myself that I have to defend. He says my accusers are many and I don’t know them, they say, “you should be careful not be deceived by an accomplished speaker like me” (Cohen, Curd, & Reeve, 2000). The accuser goes on to say that Socrates is accomplished speaker; Socrates starts to praise them, because their lies are so good well put together, that Socrates himself is almost convinced but then he says that they do not

In Plato 's “The Apology of Socrates”, Socrates states, “the unexamined life is not worth living” and he would rather be put to death them stop his practice of philosophy (The Apology). In this writing, Socrates is charged with not accepting the gods recognized by the state, devising new gods, and corrupting the youth of Athens. However, the word "apology" in the title is not our modern English interpretation of the word. The name of the speech stems from the Greek word "apologia," which translates as a speech made in defense (SparkNotes Editors). The “The Apology of Socrates” is an account of the speech Socrates makes at the trial in which he defends himself, not apologizes. What Socrates meant by declaring, “the unexamined life is not worth living”, is that a life is worth living only if it is lived in as a pursuit for a life worthy of a man to live (The Apology). Socrates believed what makes a man worthy of life is that he lives up to what is best in him as a man. Therefore this quote can be better translated as, “the unexamined life is not a worthy life for a man to live”. Socrates believes a good or worthy man has virtue. Virtue is behavior showing high moral standards such as honor and nobility. An unexamined life is one that does not examine oneself for these characteristics but claims to have wisdom. This unexamined life can be also compared to living your life on autopilot with the same dull routine and beliefs. According to Socrates, to live an examined life, one

The Apology is a seemingly misleading title. If your teacher spoke Greek, you too would learn that our word apology is actually derived from the Greek word apologia; meaning “in defense of.” Therefore, Socrates does not beg for forgiveness, rather justifies his profession. The Apology is his chance to “protest” against the authorities and make them listen to his side. Piece by piece, he dissects the charges against him. By doing so, he irritates the jurors. This is why the Apology seems to some proof of Socrates’ disrespect. When the vote came in, Socrates was declared guilty by 280 of the 500 jurors. Socrates is then given the chance to suggest a worthy punishment for himself. Most convicted persons would use this time to plea for their lives and families; Socrates had something else in mind. He says that they should reward him, as they do for the athletes, rather than punish him. The jurors came back and condemn him to death. The jurors were so incensed, even more votes shifted against him this time. Socrates does not break down and plea for his life. He simply thanks the jurors that stood behind him, and asks the others to open their minds more in the future. Socrates tells his audience “ a life

Socrates, the father of western philosophy, was an incredible apologist. While he never wrote any books of his own, his teaching is filtered through the ages from his apprentices. Plato, one of his students, wrote “The Apology” describing Socrates’ defense against the accusations that led him to be on trial. The story begins with Socrates opening with an appeal to the jury. His defense is simply his skills of rhetoric. Instead of bringing evidence, as seen in a normal court of law today, he decides to defend himself with logic and reason. He shows cool composure in facing prosecution from a jury that was biased against him. In the Apology, Socrates demonstrates his knowledge, courage, and fortitude when facing his accusers and responding to their challenges but also shows his natural tendency to be blunt and abrasive.

According to the majority of the jury members of Athens, Socrates is a corruption to the youth, doer of evil and does not agree with the gods of his people. In the Apology, written by Plato these are the assumptions and accusations Socrates is held in court for. In court, he is faced with what most men fear, being wrongly accused leading to the death sentence. Socrates argues and strives to prove that he has no fear of being hated, being accused of serious crimes, being threatened with punishment, or being put to death.

Socrates was a pompous man who believed that he was wiser than most, if not all, Athenian men of his time. He is also credited as one of the fathers of western philosophy, his own philosophy revolving around the welfare of one’s soul and reflecting on what the good life was. He was told by an oracle that he was the wisest of men and spent a great deal of time trying to prove it false, he decided that he was considered wise for accepting that he knew nothing, and never claimed to know anything that he questioned. In Plato’s text “Apology” Socrates is depicted as a man who was arrogant, hypercritical of others, and fixed on his ways no matter the consequences. He had the qualities of a man who saw no error in what he was doing because he

The speech named Apology, was given by Socrates many centuries ago. This speech was made by Plato to highlight Socrates’s defense against Athens, who was another philosopher. To this day, this speech is still considered to be one the best pieces to bridge the gap between literature and philosophy. The reason this speech was given is because Socrates was convicted of corrupting the youth, and challenging the ideas of the sky and what's below the ground. Consequently, Socrates was convicted by the state of Athens as guilty and he killed himself by eating the poisonous flower Hemlock. This speech uses all three strategies, but logos is more profound than the other two.

Plato was an Ancient Greek philosopher who lived between 428-432 B.C. He wrote mainly in dialogues, to stay true to how Socrates communicated philosophy. Plato displayed what is considered Socrates’ philosophy throughout the dialogue The Apology. In The Republic, Socrates is mainly used as a mouthpiece to communicate Plato’s philosophy. Socrates follows a philosophy best explained as “I do not know”, whereas Plato tries to find the ultimate solution to philosophical problems. In this essay, I will argue how Socrates has the best philosophical approach compared to that of Plato.

Throughout the readings of The Apology of Socrates and Crito I have found that Socrates was not a normal philosopher. It is the philosopher's intention to question everything, but Socrates' approach was different then most other philosophers. From one side of the road, Socrates can be seen as an insensitive, arrogant man. He did indeed undermine the laws so they fit his ideals, leave his family, and disregard the people's values. On the other side he can be seen as an ingenious man who questioned what many thought was the unquestionable. As he can be criticized for disregarding the many's ideals he can also be applauded for rising above the daily ways of popular thought. He

The Socratic Method is a very famous method of questioning that is not very known, although it is very important, even today. It inspires the respondent to dig deeply and think about the question with a new mind and new freedom which is obtained by discarding the previously held beliefs. The Socratic Method is valued because it allows people to live their lives in virtue. Living a virtuous life means to be honest, respectful, courageous, forgiving, and kind. One who lives a virtuous life is able to live a happy life.

To me the Socratic method is the ability to embrace our selves and question everything. Is to not be afraid to ask anything even the simplest question. Is to feel so comfortable with doing so without thinking of the repercussions of being looked at a certain way. Sort of being like a child again that is not scare to inquire every single