Reasoning is all the positive and opposing arguments that support or critique the thesis by using logic. Socrates was accused and charged with being a corruptor of the youth and denying the gods of the city but introducing other divinities. Socrates defends his case by using reasoning and logic. Socrates said that if every Athenian improved the youth while only he corrupts them, then is influence should not have a greater effect than all the Athenians. Socrates didn’t corrupt the youth.
For many centuries, many people continuously have two different stances in the Crito, which is one of the several Platonic dialogues. After pleading guilty in a trial and being sent to prison for the injustice of corrupting the youth’s mind, which he did not commit, Socrates is given the chance to decide whether to escape prison or not. Some believe that it was more righteous for Socrates to follow the Athenian laws and face his punishment. Others believe that he should not have suffered and have his last remaining moments unfairly taken from him. Despite the fact that Socrates accepted his penalty, he should have left with Crito because the trial was, overall, unfair.
Is Euthyphro pious in prosecuting his father? According to the Euthyphro, the main characters like Socrates and Euthyphro have their own notions about piety. The way the main characters understand piety is different from each other. The first, Euthyphro examines himself and brings evidence against his father. The second, Socrates asks Euthyphro, have you known what a piety is if your attitude is confident that you indict your father for a crime.
The ‘Apology’ is a form of dialectic philosophy. It illustrates the charges brought upon Socrates and the self-defense he demonstrates during the trial. Socrates is accused of ‘corruption of the youth’ and ‘impiety’. Socrates is found guilty of having faith in the wrong Gods and Meletus accuses him of not acknowledging the sun and moon as gods but as masses of stone. Socrates is accused of studying things in heaven and below the earth.
This is because everyone, including philosophers, hold a specific position on an issue and cannot possibly know everyone’s position, leading to a biased truth. However, he too believes that not everyone is equal, but he doesn’t think that philosophers are an exemption. In fact, he believes that philosophers are among the worst at claiming that their biases/prejudices are the truth. As such, I argue that Nietzsche’s conclusion prevails because Plato fails to recognize that he has a bias in favor of the philosopher’s ability to discover truth and remove their own prejudices. However, let’s begin by constructing their arguments and seeing where their opinions come from.
1. Socratic Ignorance is where a person indirectly admits that don’t know the answer to what they don’t know. In other words they know they that they don’t know everything. Euthyphro is a good example of socratic ignorance because Euthyphro claims that he knows what is holy and what is not considering that he is charging his father for the crime of killing a murderer. So Socrates asks him to define what is holy and what is not.
He may not be willing to reject his own ideas and beliefs, or may have just thought that the time to leave the world had come. The crucial point of the talk between Socrates and Crito regarding whether Socrates ought to escape from jail is the views which Socrates put forward and those have been negotiate over the millennia and actually be deserving of being argued to figure out the world of Socrates. As a result of corrupting the youth and not believing in the god in which the city believed (27a), Socrates was taken in charge and waited for death penalty. During Socrates was in jail, Crito, his faithful friend, called to convince Socrates to run off from the jail. Nevertheless, he did not accept his proposal to get away from prison not to argue against his concept and to obey the rules.
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.
According to Socrates, the difference between a “true” lie and a lie in words is that a lie in words is apparent while a true lie is real. When a true lie is concerned, a person’s whole character is oriented to a world that doesn’t exist. The character’s soul can be changed for evil. Meanwhile, a lie in words is the noble lie. Socrates says, “But surely, as I was saying just now, it would be most correct to say that it is truly speaking a lie-- the ignorance in the soul of the one to whom the lie was told.
On receiving this point of view based on Justice Plato went further to decipher Polemarchus’ idea. He referred to the analogy of the friend and sword, along with many other analogies countering in what he believes to be a ridiculous claim Polemarchus made. Each claim Polemarchus made to further convey his opinion Socrates made a counter analogy. Each showing the wrong doers and/or right doers. Current time Justice has not been followed by these standards.