Thucydides And Plato: A Comparative Analysis

The historian Thucydides described himself as a wealthy Athenian general whose exile to the Peloponnese allowed him to personally observe, from both the sides of the conflict, a comprehensive account of the Peloponnesian War. Book 1 in Thucydides’ “History of the Peloponnesian War” is dedicated to explaining over fifty years of the events and proceedings that led to the abandonment of the Thirty Year’s Peace and subsequent war. In Book 1 he identifies four main incidents, which I shall refer to as ‘grievances’, regarding the conduct of Athens towards both their Delian members and the Peloponnesian allies. Yet he also mentions what he deems to be a more ‘real’ truth than these four grievances that led to Sparta and the Peloponnese going to

In conclusion, it is shown that the ethics of Socrates and Plato can be understood by examining the works of the Crito, Meno and Phaedo. Plato 's philosophical concept in these three dialogues is mostly about denying what the self wants, either normal things like food and earthly desires or trying to gain knowledge, and instead, choosing what is just and right. This is Plato’s concept of a good life. From this quest for knowledge, virtue is obtained, and this is the main goal of philosophy in Socrates ' mind. Laws must be made in accordance with wisdom by those who practice philosophy, and must seek to benefit the city as a whole.

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.”

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.

At the end of everyone’s lives, the goal appears to be about attaining happiness. Describing how to obtain happiness has been an issue that was debated in the past but is still talked about now . In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle expands on his view of happiness and he focuses particularly on how reason helps recognize and pursue what will lead to happiness and the good life. I feel that Aristotle’s philosophies on happiness are important works within the field of philosophy and he considered one of the………of it . In this paper, I will explore Aristotle’s beliefs regarding happiness then compare and contrast them to those of Martin Seligman.

Breaking this agreement would leave his conscience guilty and make his life not worthwhile. He also believes that if he were to leave it would tarnish his reputation of him, his children, who he wanted to raise in Athens, would also have to bear his reputation which would be ruined if he left. Socrates would rather die knowing that he did not break his agreement with Athens and ruin his reputation and have a clean conscience than flee to another city and live out the rest of his life with the guilt. Socrates also says that if he were to escape it would be hurting the city by undermining the judicial system and giving it no credibility to convict other criminals who would escape just as he did and leaving it susceptible to a state of no order and

By escaping from prison, he would be breaking the laws of the city. Since the laws all together are seen as one, by breaking one law he would be breaking all the laws. In order for a law to be legitimate, the citizens of the city must follow the laws. If the law is broken, it is no longer a legitimate law. This is why Socrates

That would not be good on his part because he would know this could happen but still proceed to escape and possibly be risking his friends lives. With the chance that his friends don't get caught and he did escape Socrates would be unlikely to find another town that welcomes him. There wouldn't be a city, that had well formed laws, that would allow a man who broke the laws of the city that he called him home for seventy years. If he were to find a city that had accepted him, he would not be able to continue his old life of questioning people and trying to improve them. He cant continue teaching people about how laws, goodness, and justice are the highest of value to people.

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

He mentioned that he would worship the idea of asking them questions, discuss his sufferings to others. He believed that he would win either way because he would be living a better life of finding out who is wide and he could continue his search for true and false knowledge. His arguments are valid because after he states his beliefs, he explains why he thinks what he thinks to be true. He created the theory of, “Either death is a state of nothing ness and utter unconsciousness, or, as men say, there is a change and migration of the soul from this world by another” (Plato).

With the Apology, and the Crito, Socrates comes to delve into his many teachings and finds himself put to death with the words of wisdom that have been passed down generation after generation. Socrates for many in this present day is a man of many words and great teachings, but anyone but Socrates thought differently, in Athens people thought of him as an annoyance rather than an integral part of society. As Socrates stood in front of the counsel of judges, he stood for what he thought was right and never changed opinion of himself or of his words. That’s why Socrates is still talked about in classrooms everywhere today.

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 believes that justice benefits the just, but also benefits the city (other people) too. He is faced with a seemingly simple choice, escape Athens or remain in prison and be sentenced to death. Socrates’ central argument against escaping his circumstances is twofold. First, Socrates argues that “one must never do wrong.” (49b)

The one strong argument he gives about children is effectively refuted by Socrates. Socrates' consequential argument is not necessarily compelling, but if we accept his primary argument about only lives that are lived well having value, then his second argument concerning his agreement with the state to follow its laws is a compelling one, therefore Socrates was right to decide to remain in

Therefore, since Athens has a part to play in corrupting Socrates’s life as well as his mistaken visual of the truth, Socrates must understand that by obeying the state, he has done injustice to his soul for it will not be in true harmony. Furthermore he will be doing an injustice to the state because Plato would have established that, objectively, Athens laws are unjust and even if Socrates thinks that they are just, it is only because Socrates has been corrupted by