What Are Socrates's Ethos Pathos Logos

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

The appeal to logos, ethos, and pathos are used everyday in many instances. A commercial is just one instance, and Gatorade commercials use them very well. The specific Gatorade commercial I chose to use was the one where Kevin Durant has a nightmare about being blocked by Dwyane Wade that aired in 2013. Kevin Durant doesn’t want that dream to come true so he practices very hard all while using Gatorade products. Meanwhile Dwyane Wade has a nightmare that he gets dunked on by KD, so he decides to use Gatorade products while he practices. The commercial is essentially saying that if you use Gatorade products that you will achieve your goals easier, and be more like the great NBA players that use the products as well.

By comparing himself to the Greek hero Achilles before the jury in Plato’s Apology, Socrates attempts to portray himself as a hero of equal merit to Achilles and others of similar standing. By selecting the greatest of the Classical Greeks to compare and contrast himself to in his argument, Socrates surreptitiously urges his audience to view him as being of the same caliber as Achilles. This not only authenticates Socrates’ claims, but also exhibits his disconnect from earlier forms of thought. Essentially, Socrates attempts to display himself in the same light as his predecessor Achilles through their shared aspiration to do what they deem to be right in addition to their

Whether Socrates is portrayed correctly or not, he certainly was a great man. His contribution to western thought cannot be denied. For even if his teachings were different from what they are known to be at present, his influence on Plato is immense. And so, it is no small matter to describe the tragic passing of such a man as Socrates was and remains for philosophy today. Yet in all the indignation which is expected to arise at the death of Socrates, the panache with which he departs is captured excellently in Plato's “Apology.” Specifically, at the end of the "Apology," Socrates makes a very important statement that has had great impact on philosophy ever since its original proclamation. The

In Alexander Sesonke’s review of “Plato’s Apology: Republic 1”, he boasts Socrates appeal to logos writing, “His method in Republic 1 as throughout the early dialogues, is to seek truth via refutation; to elicit opinion and then confront it with a contrary opinion held with equal firmness. It is a method requiring great logical agility whose exercise is based upon the faith that conviction and truth are to be achieved by finding in each respondent the true voice of his true self.” Despite facing the death penalty, Socrates logically defends his way of life and maintains his composure. In a large portion of his speech Socrates used the syllogism to appeal to his audience’s reason. The syllogism was a schematic device that Aristotle invented to analyze and

Socrates put one’s quest for wisdom and the instruction of others above everything else in life. A simple man both in the way he talked and the wealth he owned, he believed that simplicity in whatever one did was the best way of acquiring knowledge and passing it unto others. He is famous for saying that “the unexplained life is not worth living.” He endeavored therefore to break down the arguments of those who talked with a flowery language and boasted of being experts in given subjects (Rhees 30). His aim was to show that the person making a claim on wisdom and knowledge was in fact a confused one whose clarity about a given subject was far from what they claimed. Socrates, in all his simplicity never advanced any theories of his own

After reading “The Apology,” I decided to respond about how Socrates used the Socratic Method during his trial. Socrates, using this method, crafted a personal defense against the allegations laid upon him and, at the same time, Socrates led Miletus to trap himself as a part of that defense. I believe that Socrates’ decision to defend himself in this manner brings up some important considerations. First, Socrates using the Socratic Method as an integral part of his defense not only unraveled most of Miletus’ support, but Socrates was able to showcase his wisdom to the people of the court to show them what kind of person Socrates was when he acted as he usual did. Secondly, Socrates, through his attack on Miletus showed the people of the court the potential threat that Socrates could have been this entire time had that been his focus. Both of these considerations are possible only because Socrates’ used his method of questioning to craft a defense for himself.

The skepticism found within Socrates' logic leads us to realize that he has no claims that he has answers, yet he is living and dying for the ideal that "an unexamined life is not worth living." There is no point at which Socrates is looking for followers, much like a prophet would look for disciples, for his ideals appeal to reason, not faith. Although this may be the case, he has left his contemporaries, ancient and modern day philosophers, as well as any other students of his teachings in a complete paradox. For centuries, many have attempted to carve out a middle path between the severity of his claim on the examined life, and the predestined state of doubt that surfaces with the search for justice and virtue.

Socrates’s image in the two works differ firstly in his attitude towards knowledge and towards himself. A typical statement of Socrates, both in the Euthyphro and in other Plato’s works, is that he has no clear knowledge. He is different from the public because he knows that he does not know. Neither does he claim to teach or corrupt the young (Euthyphro, p.2

Socrates is considered to have been one of the best to ever use logos in a speech. However, his use of ethos and pathos is nothing to be scoffed at. When analyzing the speech for the use of ethos one huge point pops out. Socrates says that “And I must beg of you to grant me a favor:, If I defend myself in my accustomed manner, and you hear me using the words which I have been in the habit of using in the agora, at the tables of the money-changers, or anywhere else, I would ask you not to be surprised, and not to interrupt me on this account. For I am more than seventy years of age, and appearing now for the first time in a court of law…”(2). This statement lends itself to the accusers to feel bad for Socrates because he has not been in court before. This statement also establishes that

What arguments do Socrates and his interlocutors provide in these dialogues and what does their discussion suggest about the way in which virtue is in fact acquired? Socrates initiates the inquiries into this problem in each dialogue the same way, that is, to admit no knowledge of the subject at hand. He further admits that he could not possibly teach virtue without knowing what virtue is, “if I do not know what a thing is, how could I know what to teach?” (ho de me oida ti estin,

Throughout The Apology, the way Socrates defends himself is through logic, or logos. Socrates develops what is

The name of the dialogue is derived from the Greek word “apologia” which translates into “defense.” Socrates mission has led to animosity from his fellow Athenians and is in trial for what he claims he is just following orders from God. To examine why Socrates is determined to continue this mission regardless of any consequences, we must first understand how Socrates began his philosophical mission. Socrates had a friend, Chairephone; he went to Delphi and asked the oracle if anyone was wiser than Socrates. In The Apology Socrates is recorded saying “he asked if any man was wiser than I, and the Pythian replied that no one was wiser” (The Apology, 21a). Trying to understand this “riddle”, Socrates was at loss and goes to question someone who was considered wise in Athens. After finding out that this man was no wiser than he was he thought to himself, “he thinks he knows something when he does not, whereas when I do not know, neither do I think I know; so I am likely to be wiser than he to this small extent.” (21d). Socrates did not just stop with this one man. He went on to question politicians, poets, generals among others and received a similar experience with each one. What Socrates derived from these dialogues was that he was aware of his own ignorance rather than being completely wrong. This awareness of one’s own ignorance is known as “Socratic Ignorance” and is the premise of Socrates’

From the dialogue, it is my understanding that Socrates posits that there is no universal understanding of holiness. In that respect, holiness may be understood once our elaborate and true beliefs or arguments have been defined and proven through logic. This is seen from the inconclusiveness that characterises the end of the dialogue. This instance implies that the dialogue has failed at defining holiness. The irony in Socrates arguments’ highlights that; ideas have to be proven before acceptance. This holds irrespective of who posits them.

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.