In his book “The Republic”, Plato argues vis-à-vis Socrates that the philosopher is, in fact, the happiest person. He draws this conclusion when he compares it against that of a money-lover and an honour-lover. This paper will expound on the argument put forth by Socrates and in doing so will provide the reasons for my support of his argument.
Comparing Socrates words in the Republic for the philosopher to rule to the words of the Apology where philosophy is viewed as something that is punishable by death, this is where the defense or importance of philosophy is realized. For if the philosophers were the ones to rule, nobody would question whether or not what they were doing was right or wrong because the philosopher-kings make the rules through wisdom and knowledge. Plato wants to paint a portrait of the philosopher as not only something the city should want to have, but also as someone who would be fit to rule above all others. This contrasts, again, to the points made by the jurors to Socrates in the Apology for they saw Socrates as someone who brings the city
In Apology, Socrates faces possible execution as he stands trial in front of his fellow Athenian men. This jury of men must decide whether Socrates has acted impiously against the gods and if he has corrupted the youth of Athens. Socrates claims in his defense that he wants to live a private life, away from public affairs and teachings in Athens. He instead wants to focus on self-examination and learning truths from those in Athens through inquiry. Socrates argues that "a [man] who really fights for justice must lead a private, not a public, life if [he] is to survive for even a short time" (32a).
Socrates should remain in prison after evaluating Critos arguments although Socrates’s were stronger. I’ll begin with Crito’s argument and what makes them strong, and what doesn’t. Next, I’ll focus on Socrates arguments and what makes them good and what makes them weak, mainly his focus that living with a bad soul isn’t worth living when you have a bad soul. Crito gives Socrates three arguments.
In this paper I will argue that Socrates’s argument at 50a-b of the Crito would be not harming his fellow citizens by breaking the laws. Based on the readings from Plato’s The Five Dialogues, I will go over the reasoning of Socrates’ view on the good life. I will then discuss the three arguments Crito has for Socrates regarding his evasion of the death sentence including the selfish, the practicality, and the moral arguments. I will deliberate an objection to the argument and reply to the objections made in the paper and conclude with final thoughts. Socrates argues in the Crito that he should not escape or disobey the law because it is unethical.
Socrates’ Arguments in the Crito In The Crito, Socrates argues that he should not escape prison because it would be morally incorrect. He says that the really important thing is not to live but to live well. Therefore, by escaping prison, not only will he suffer the consequences but also his family, his friends, and the city of Athens. Socrates argues that the city of Athens would be affected if he escapes from prison.
Plato’s Crito takes place in the jail cell of Socrates, who is wrongfully committed for a crime and is subjected to death. Socrates friends, including Crito, formulate a plan to bribe the guard overlooking Socrates and help him escape in order to give him a peaceful life in exile. Yet, Socrates objects to all of these actions and chooses to face death for many valid reasons. Socrates does not take a stance about whether escaping looks good or bad, instead he lets other people decide whether it is good or bad, for it reflects on them and not on Socrates. Socrates views escaping his unjust punishment as wrongful due to his gratitude, consistency, and loyalty to the laws and order of the government.
Socrates was a greek philosopher who found himself in trouble with his fellow citizens and court for standing his grounds on his new found beliefs from his studies about philosophical virtue, justice, and truth. In “Apology” written by Plato, Socrates defended himself in trial, not with the goal of escaping the death sentence, but with the goal of doing the right thing and standing for his beliefs. With this mindset, Socrates had no intention of kissing up to the Athenians to save his life. Many will argue that Socrates’ speech was not very effective because he did not fight for his life, he just accepted the death sentence that he was punished with. In his speech he said, “But now it’s time to leave, time for me to die and for you to live.”
On his way to his death some might say he should escape since his trial is unjust. Some might argue, like Socrates, that it isn't right for him to escape and go against his word. His friend Crito is trying to argue the reasons why Socrates is in the right for escaping, while Socrates is arguing the opposite, why his morals will not allow him to do so. Socrates argues many things and makes very firm arguments.
To be just or to be served an injustice and obey, this is the very basis of the philosophical dialogue between Socrates and Crito. The Crito begins as one of Socrates’ wealthy friends, Crito, offers Socrates a path to freedom—to escape from Athens. Through the ensuing dialogue, Socrates examines, as a man who is bound by principles of justice, whether an unjust verdict should be responded to with injustice. In the dialogue between Socrates and Crito, Socrates outlines his main arguments and principles that prevent him from escaping under such circumstances. Socrates is under guard when Crito visits him, thus the plan to escape.
Even though Socrates claims to be innocent of the charges brought against him, he is ultimately sentenced to death. After he hears the jury's decision, Socrates is sent to jail to await his execution. Crito arrives before Socrates is scheduled for execution and offers him a chance to escape. Crito believes the jury's decision was unjust. In Crito's eyes, Socrates is innocent and therefore has the right to escape. However, even though Crito believes Socrates has the right to escape, Socrates disagrees with him.
Plato’s Apology tells the account of the trial of the philosopher Socrates. It is Plato’s account of what Socrates said against the charges they were being brought to him and his pursuit of his own innocence throughout the trial. The charges that are being brought up against him are that he is damaging the youth by corrupting them, accusation of his belief in the gods and teaching about gods that were not accepted by the State, they believe he is trying to change religion, while also accusing him that he will not prove to the court that he did not perform in these action. From the beginning, he asks not to be interrupted while he speaks and as he speaks his accusers seem to be taken back by his words. At the end Socrates changes in a sense
Rather, he is tolerant in his discourse on whether he should take Crito 's offer. His contention was making sense of what was the proper act of what is just for this situation. Despite the fact that he was at the bleeding edge of the execution, he needed to make a point that, regardless of whether it was at the cost of his own life, it may not be just to flee from his looming destiny. Crito at first is perplexed and dumbfounded by Socrates and his delay to go into banish. As they speak, Socrates utilizes talk to demonstrate his inward difficulties and discover which way is the correct approach.
He has passion for his beliefs and values, and would rather die than give them up. When presented with the idea of the jury releasing him he states “as long as I draw breath and am able, I shall not cease to practice philosophy” (Plato 32). This shows that Socrates does not believe what he has done and what he believes in is wrong; he will continue to do what he had been put on trial for if released. This is the exact opposite of what one would say to appease the jury. Socrates is on trial because some believe what he was doing was wrong, by refusing to acknowledge that he was wrong, this speech contradicts our modern day idea of an apology.
In this essay, I will be discussing Aristotle’s conception of the “good life” which he outlined in the Nicomachean Ethics. As we will see, the “good life” for man according to Aristotle is one where we perform the particular activity which is distinctly ours and guides us towards eudaimonia – sometimes translated as ‘happiness’ or ‘well-being’. He shows us how the other conflicting depictions of the ‘good life’ are misguided, and how we should aim for a life of reason. First, however, I will discuss briefly what Aristotle meant by the term ‘good’ and then move on to how he arrived at the conclusion on human happiness. Aristotle believes that the ‘good life’ for a particular organism depends on what that organism is and the conditions it requires