Plato's Defense Of Corruption In The Apology By Socrates

He was proving this because throughout his speech, he made it seem like the idea of knowing the truth and having real knowledge about a subject wasn’t needed in order to achieve the goal of persuasion. In Socrates’ speech he stated, “...if I say that the unexamined life is not worth living, you’ll believe me even less... you think I’ve been convicted for lack of arguments that would have persuaded you…” Socrates never specified or went into details about his beliefs that he was presenting to the court which, revealed to them that he did not know anything. He wasn’t able to strengthen his claims by providing evidence meaning his use of logos was faulty. However, Socrates’ goal was not to gather evidence to make it seem as if he was putting all his efforts in saving his life.

In Apology Socrates finds himself in court defending himself for the crime of corrupting the youth of Athens. Socrates has many points that he brings up during the hearing in order to prove himself innocent of the claims. In order to prove himself he decides to have a conversation with the lead accuser Meletus. Socrates first tried to understand what the charges mean in reference to himself by asking who betters the children. “How do you mean, Meletus?

This is written by his student, Plato, who was present during this trial. Socrates is sentenced to death for these crimes because during that time, it was

Following traditional Socratic procedure, Socrates, in Plato’s Euthyphro, assumes the unfitting role of the ignorant pupil seeking to obtain knowledge from Euthyphro, the prosecutor and self-proclaimed expert on piety. However, as the dialogue progresses and the irony reveals itself, Euthyphro unveils his true ignorance and Socrates emerges as the wise prosecutor who questions the former on his various definitions and understandings of piety. Euthyphro, after having his previous definitions rejected by Socrates, suggests that what is pious is “what all the gods love” (Plato 9e). Immediately, Socrates deconstructs this argument and outlines a simple syntactic analysis of a phrase.

He says, “But Polyneices, killed as piteously, an interdict forbids that anyone should bury him or even mourn.” (192). Through disobeying the Gods, Creon implies that his laws are more important than the Gods. Creon’s disregard towards the Gods, explains why he dismisses Tiresias’s power. Creon’s overall power grants him his free will.

Socrates contradicts Gorgias when he says “Communities shouldn’t hold trainers responsible and banish them for what a boxer does with his boxing” (Socrates 22). So Socrates questions how they would be immoral if they were taught to be moral. He uses logos to win his argument against Gorgias by having him admit to Socrates being right. Gorgias thinks a teacher cannot be accountable but then admits people who are taught morality don’t necessarily have to be moral. When a rhetorician abuses the power of rhetoric, his teacher should not be blamed because he teaches the knowledge to be used correctly.

When the teacher forbids the questions Equality asks, it shows the limitations of his knowledge since he cannot learn more than he already knows. The society believed that being better than the rest of their ‘brothers’ is immoral. Having more knowledge than another meant more individuality and the society did not appreciate that. Individuality is a characteristic that differentiates one person from another, it is what makes one person themselves. The society in Anthem removes the idea of individuality.

“Oh god, is there a man alive / who knows, who actually believes...” (Sophocles, Antigone 1162-63). Religious corruption has led to a complete dismissal of religion; the world has lost its tune with the divine, spirituality has become a myth and a doctrine for the elderly. Gazing back into the depths of time reveals vital yet lost opinions on Divinity which have vanished in modern cultures. Within the ancient Greek works, a careful analyzation unfolds the authors opinions on whether the gods and oracles are worthy of veneration or just tools in a political battle of power.

The id “consists largely of desires regulated or forbidden by social convention” (Tyson 25), i.e. Frankenstein’s god complex, whereas the superego is the internalized rules and norms of society. While Victor’s superego is telling him that it is wrong to want to be a god, and that he needs to confess, his id convinces him that it is okay to let Justine die because even if he did confess, no one would believe him. In fact, not only does Victor not attempt to save Justine, he feels as though he is the one that has it worse, writing that “the torture of the accused did not equal [his]” (86). Justine is dead and Victor is only thinking of himself because he sees himself as apart from other people and their suffering, which is his god complex shining through. He again rationalizes his self pity by arguing that if he had confessed, people still would have suffered (namely him), and that it is better to be someone so young and innocent.

Plato’s famous philosophical text, Apology, is the account of Socrates’ trial for attempting to corrupt the youth and challenging the popular belief in the Greek Gods. Socrates’ wisely stated during the trial that, “the unexamined life is not worth living for a human being” (Apology). His idea of the good life was a life in which one’s complete self seeks out the universal truths and if his ideas were applied to our modern society, they would still be largely applicable. Socrates’ use of the phase ‘the unexamined life’ could have multiple meanings and applications.

Equality 7-2521 tries to persuade them to listen to him, telling them that he gives them "the power of the sky" and the "key to the earth." The scholars respond, saying, "What is not done collectively cannot be good” (Rand 73). Ayn Rands anthem shows opposition to collectivism through the topics, selflessness, family, and invention One way Ayn Rand shows opposition to collectivism is with selflessness, for example “Men never see their own faces and never ask their brothers about it, for it is evil to have concern for their own faces or bodies” (rand 61). Individuals in the dark ages are not allowed to see their face or bodies because that would reinforce sense of individual self.

This was brought up due to the topic of Euthyphro thoughts of murdering his father. Proceeding onward, Socrates thirst for knowledge and comprehend made him pose the questions of what piety and impiety really mean. Euthyphro did

The forth crime that was charged was, disbelief ‘in the gods of the city.’ This charge is a result from the first charge of being ‘a natural philosopher.’ He indeed did not believe in any of the Olympian deities. He may have gotten out of this one if he praised any god and paid tribute to them, but he did not. Because he didn’t, he had committed treason.

The first concept that I noticed shared by Russell and Socrates was the concept that one had to remove themselves before serious philosophical contemplation could take place. In Russell 's case, he refers to the "Self" and the "Not-Self". With Socrates, as seen in the Apology, confronting his accuser about the corruption of youth, his accuser is silent because he had not given the matter any thought. Socrates awareness of his own ignorance frees him from what Russell would refer to as "Self". I mention this because it serves as a common theme even as both philosophers differ in their messages.

Socrates defended himself well during the trial. I do not think that Socrates was guilty for anything. He was accused by Meletus for "corrupting the young”. However, there was no evidence of this. Socrates mentioned that there was no youth to testify that they were corrupted by him.