Death In Plato's The Apology

In Plato’s Apology, Socrates is put into trial because he is accused of corrupting the youth with his teachings that deviate from the established beliefs of the Greek society. Although he justifies that he is only doing what he believes is his duty, he reasons that even if he is given a death penalty, death is nothing to be feared. He raises multiple strong and effective arguments that explain to his audience that it is illogical to fear death. All of these arguments revolves around the central idea that death is not evil and that “no evil can happen to a good man, either in life or after death” (Apology, 41c).

In this paper I will examine why Socrates did not attempt to appease the jury in his Apology. Socrates is put on trial for corrupting the youth and believing in gods other than the gods of the city. I believe he chose not to appease the jury for three reasons: he is a man of pride, he does not fear death and additionally finds it shameful to fear death.

In Plato’s Apology, Socrates uses religious appeals, proof by contradiction WC and various examples to argue for his innocence in court. Socrates is forced to argue for the sake of his life to prove that he is not guilty. Socreates’ speech, however, he is not apologizing for anything instead, the word comes from the Greek word “apologia,” that translates to a speech made in defense.

“I have spoken it without concealing anything from you, major or minor, and without glossing

In the Apology, drafted by Plato, contained within the First Year Seminar anthology, the main character Socrates was convicted of several offenses. One was that “Socrates was guilty of wrongdoing in that he busied himself studying things in the sky and below the earth; he made the worse into the stronger argument, and he taught these same things to others” (Belmont University, 2016). Socrates countered with the one defense that he gained this slander because he possessed a unique kind of wisdom that others envied. In essence, who were jealous of Socrates desired to drag his name through the mud.

In Plato’s Phaedo, Socrates is preparing for his death following his trial in Plato’s Apology. He engages in an discussion with Simmias and Cebes about why death should be important to all philosophers. When he begins this discussion, Socrates compares the relationship between the soul and body to a person being imprisoned. He builds upon this analogy as he identifies the soul and body as two separate entities. The soul being divine, immortal, and pure, while the body is compository, susceptible to death, and impure. His interlocutors take issue with the assumption that the soul continues to exist after death, but I will not. Upon making these distinctions, Socrates explains that the pursuit of knowledge, or wisdom, should be the life goal

Plato’s Apology is in the words of Socrates. The apology explains what Socrates though of death as he awaited his death after being condemned for not believing in God. He believed after death, one would either go to another world or be in a state of nothingness. He had the theory of death being a place where one would learn about life and talk to people that no longer walk the Earth. He supports his argument that death is a gain by explaining that he, Socrates, will get to speak to famous poets and past heroes. 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.

The Apology written by Plato is about the speech of Socrates at the trial in which he is accused and chargef for “corrupting the young” and “not believing in the gods in whom the city believes, but in other daimonian that are novel.” The meaning of the Apology gets from the Greek "apologia," which interprets as to defend, or a speech made to defend oneself.

A man is sentenced and put to death for stealing an apple from the grocery store. Where he resides, theft is a capital crime. Was this trial just? Most people would say no, it is immoral and unjust to execute someone for theft, especially for something as small as an apple. Although this is true, this man broke the law, committing a capital crime. The result of a capital crime is execution. Therefore, the laws were upheld and this was a just trial. If laws are not followed, what would be the point of laws? This question arises in Plato’s Apology. The Apology is Socrates’ speech to defend himself in his trial against the charges of corruption of the youth and believing in false gods. 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

‘Sophocles, because he was a great artist, had something more important to do even than to make beautiful plays, namely to express as directly as his medium allowed certain tragic ideas which sprung out of a certain apprehension about human life.’ (H.D.F. Kitto)

In this essay, I will present an argument that shows that Plato will convince Socrates to reconsider his decision to receive the death sentence. Plato would show Socrates that his three reasons for staying to receive his sentence is unjust because his action is fuelled by injustice. I will also show that Socrates will agree with Plato about the unjust consequences that his actions may bring after Plato reasons why Socrates is doing an injustice. Finally, Plato would then proceed to show Socrates that his decision to stay cannot result in happiness and justice which in turn will cause Socrates to re-evaluate accepting his death sentence according to his own ideals of a happy and just life.

Gilgamesh wanted to escape death after witnessing the death of his best friend. He was afraid that he would be nothing more than a corpse. "Shall I not die too? Am I not like Enkidu? I have grown afraid of death so I roam the steppe." (Gilgamesh,93). Gilgamesh was affected deeply by Enkidu death, however he did not realize that if he were granted immortality he would constantly face the death of his loved ones and close friend, as he did with Enkidu. He would have to watch everyone around him die and he would still be living. His fear of death led him on a journey to find immortality but what he did not understand at the time is that death should not be feared; every living thing has to die.

In the entry of Phaedo, Plato claims that the soul is immortal and that when the body dies the soul gets reincarnated. Throughout his story, Socrates provides arguments that help support his claim about the soul being immortal. I will be explaining and evaluating 2 of Plato’s arguments that will

To have a decent understanding of how the human condition relates to literature, a person must have an understanding of what the human condition is. Medically, human condition relates to the state a human is in; however, on a larger scale, the meaning of human condition relates to the meaning of being alive and having the ability to feel emotions: happiness, sadness, anger, etc. Throughout history, society has a way of altering the meaning of different pieces of literature, which overall result in the meaning of the human condition changing. There are many famous novels, plays, and other forms of writing that test, analyze, and question the human condition: The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark by William Shakespeare; The Case for a Tragic

The trial and death of Socrates is a book with four dialogues all about the trail that leads to the eventual death of Socrates. The four dialogues are Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, and Phaedo. It will explain the reasoning that brought Socrates to trial in the first place and give us a glimpse into the physiological thought of this time, and in this paper will describe some of the differences today.