I remain uncertain about Socrates’ argument for censorship. While I understand that this is merely a thought-experiment of Socrates’, should poetry (and perhaps we could extrapolate this to art in general) be valued only for its contributions to a just society? Does Socrates mean to say that there can justice cannot be achieved with poetry/art that invoke conflicting and controversial
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). He claims that this is how he has been able to live a long life in Athens and that he never meant any harm to the state. Socrates believes that for
Socrates started his life as an average Athen citizen. His parents worked, making an honest living. But as Socrates grew up, he began to realize that his mind questioned things and wondered how come no one else questioned the same things or at least think about the answers to the questions that were not answered. So, as his mind kept wandering, he began to acknowledge the questions that were not answered and sought for those answers. He ended up believing and teaching things to other people, whether it went against the way the Athen government or not, he still continued his work. Making enemies and becoming the topic of conversation, the Athenians began to view Socrates as a threat to their beliefs and way of life and sought to end it. In order to end this, Socrates was accused of blasphemy (Mod1SlideC7). Socrates’s accusers took him to court and after Socrates did not play their game by asking to be sent into exile, and in the end, he was sentenced to death. After reading the textbook and Plato’s writing influenced by Socrates, I realized that in the period of his life Socrates was indeed truly a threat to the Athens society, because he looked for answers that no one else bothered to find which challenged their culture.
In The Crito Socrates uses two metaphors to justify his reason for staying in jail and dying instead of leaving Athens and starting a new life in another town. The metaphor he uses that most justifies his reasoning is the argument of tacit agreement, that he agreed to the laws and regulation of Athens when he decided to live there. Socrates knew that living in he agreed to follow all rules that the city had.
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) In other words, one should never do an injustice. And likewise, “one should never do wrong in return, nor do any man harm, no matter what he may have done to you.”(49d) It is from this argument that Socrates outlines why he must not escape, for it would be to wrong the city that made him. No matter what the city may have done to him, he must never act against it in retaliation. Socrates bases this view of justice on the worth of living a good life. “And is life worth living for us with that part of us corrupted by unjust actions” (47e) If we corrupt our soul with injustice, our life would not be worth living, therefore one must never commit an injustice. “When one has come to an agreement that is just with someone, one should fulfill it.”(49e) It is this agreement with the Laws that Socrates would be violating, if he were to
These stories of gods performing impious actions would ultimately impact citizens’ characters and in turn cause them to complete similar impious actions. Instead, the stories that should educate the city’s guardians should be heroic. Any passages that may cause children to fear death or the afterlife should be omitted. Lying and falsehood should not be depicted as glorious and moderation in sex, food and drink are required in these accounts. These stories should be in pure narration, especially when told to kids, because Plato believes that imitation is bad and
Socrates sees himself as wiser than other men including the politicians, craftsmen, and poets because he did not go around thinking he knew what he did not know. As a result of this, his character reflected someone who saw himself as superior to others and instead of feeding that ego, he could have been a joined politics and have an influence on the Athenian democracy. If he had done this, people like Meletus and his later accusers would have taken his criticism in a positive way.
Was Plato trying to show what an ‘unjust’ city would look like? Why would he do that? The analysis and discussion of Plato’s ‘just’ city opens new doors about Plato, himself, and his intentions. From this analysis on the city’s short comings, one can spring more and more ideas about his ‘republic’ and his ‘ideals’ forever. This one analysis is only a small interpretation, or perspective of a small portion, or passage of The
The phenomenon "Socrates" surrounds every aspect of politics, culture, economic and social landscape in the current world. Indeed, there are several books on Socrates on every bookshelf in the world. Most of these books written about Socrates are dialogues of which one of them is named Gorgias. As it is already acknowledged, several books written by Plato are about Socrates. Gorgias happens to be one of his collections of dialogues involving Socrates and other characters. This dialogue is aimed at finding the true meaning of rhetoric by trying to identify and expose the defects of sophism synonymous in Athens during the period. Conventional Athens revered the ability to persuade people in political and legal fields, and this is the reason for
The version of Socrates presented in both The Apology, Crito, and The Republic could very well be two different versions of Socrates as presented by Plato. However, both versions of Socrates have one thing in common: they both value the importance of philosophy and they both defend philosophy as something that is important to humanity.
The truth hurts, sometimes more than others, but this piercing two-edged sword is what shapes us into what we become in life; either good people, from learning and speaking truth or bad people from hiding the truth and speaking lies. One instance in my life, where seeing the truthful insight was disturbing, was when I, with the help of my family, saw that it was time to get out of an abusive relationship. It was like any destructive and worldly relationship, where one feels completely enveloped in a fog of that person and their manipulation; I felt like there was nothing outside of my own, self-made cave. I saw the shadows of what I thought were representations of love and trust, but it was only my imagination that took those shadows and
People are often averse to the truth. Plato wrote “The Apology” in order illuminate the hostility towards real truth because he believed he had an obligation to reveal how easily thought could be manipulated. Plato documents Socrates’s final address to the jury before he is due for execution. Socrates had been accused of using such embellished language throughout his explanations that he had caused a severe confusion to the people and then an eventual embarrassment; thus, allowing the people to reject what Socrates had been trying to preach. This creates a dismissal of Socrates’ ideas throughout the people and generates an even greater divide of thought. Consequently, the citizens then looked towards the higher authority in Socrates’ persecution rather than Socrates’ himself due to the pure exaggeration of the case by Meletus. This exploitation leads to a corruption within the Athenian society that Socrates is trying to prevent. He believes that there is a misunderstanding in terms of languages, and a has a strong mistrust towards the government which ultimately allows him to advocate for sameness with the people. Plato’s approach to justifying Socrates’
There is no part of the human experience that the ideal of Justice does not permeate. Our morals define us as people, as well as our greater society. The way we implement our beliefs into a structured system may not always be the same, and not always been seen as just by all. Thus, Justice is a concept still undefined and debated even since ancient Greece. In one of founding works of this modern day debate is Plato’s The Apology. Within the greater work, The Trial and Death of Socrates, Socrates’ own defense against the people of Athens begs the questions of whether Athens was a just society. Punished to death, Socrates’ is forever a martyr for his ideals and his debate unjust death begins Plato’s exploration into Justice. Through The Apology, Plato explains how the silencing of Socrates is a harsh injustice due to the democratic nature of his trial that strips the moral absolution from Justice as well as shows that Athens, as society of individualist justice, has failed in instilling order that allows for greater unity as a perfect Whole.
What is justice? The Republic by Plato aims to essentially this question with distinct discussions about the different components of justice. The ethic is a foundational element into the philosophical questions one encounters. Not only does the literary work aim to form a definition of justice, but also aims to prove how justice will arise. In a discussion with Glaucon, Socrates explains how he believes justice will develop. Justice will emerge when philosophers rule the just city. Socrates believes the thinkers are quintessential to the ideal city for aristocracy and continues by justifying his reasoning. He proceeds into a discussion about the regimes of injustice, comprised with a discussion about democracy. Socrates ultimately argues that
Painted in France, Paris in the style of Neo-Classicism, Jacques Louis David’s The Death of Socrates is one of the better-known examples of art produced by this artist of wide-range styles. Jacques Louis David painted probably one of his most famous paintings in art history “The Death of Socrates" in 1787, an art composition in its simplest form. In this painting, completed in 1787 as an oil on canvas, It has a height of 51 inches, and a length of 77 ¼ inches. The Death of Socrates by Jacques Louis David is a perfect example of a neoclassical painter using a famous work of literature, in this case Plato’s Phaedo, as his source of inspiration. The painting portrays one of Socrates’ final moments before he drinks the Hemlock and ultimately dies as a result. Socrates was brought up on charges of speaking out against the beliefs of Athens and corrupting the minds of the youth. An analysis of the painting’s historical