Evaluating Socrates Claim In The Apology

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.

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.

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.”

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. He “undercut the authority and legitimacy of a particular regime.”1 Socrates openly denied the gods, which meant he openly denied the legitimacy of the prestigious politicians of Greece.

Through many of Plato’s works, such as the Republic, the Gorgias, and the Apology, the person that Socrates was and his personality shine through in his dialogue. Socrates was a man who asked many questions and always pushed not only his students but the whole city of Athens to look for more than just physical things. Many people claim, that Socrates went about teaching in the wrong way and that he is an arrogant fool and not an extremely wise person. However, I disagree with this claim. I believe that Socrates was a man who looked beyond the physical world and strived to gain as much knowledge as he could through asking questions and continuing to learn from others and in turn teach others, thus making him wise and striving to live the best life.

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.

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.

For this week's journal entry, I would like to bring up the idea of "wisdom" in reference to Plato's Apology. Personally, I find that the way in which Socrates defends is wisdom is admirable, and although it leads to the verdict of him being killed, I think that this decision and the reaction by Socrates helps define wisdom. Socrates, in essence, says that he does not fear death because he is wise. No one knows what death is -- perhaps it may be the best thing a person gets to experience. However, a person that is unwise would approach death into thinking that it is the worst thing that can happen in life.

Socrates clearly states, in support of this opinion that that according to Euthyphro’s account,

Even on his last day of existence, Socrates did not surrender his exploration of the nature of the soul. Using the Socratic Method and the Recollection Argument, he cleverly proved that the soul exists before birth and that it is immortal. In this paper, I will explain Socrates’ line of reasoning by using the words of the philosophers engaged in the discussion recollected in Phaedo and a metaphor of my own. Secondly, I will point out some limitations in the Recollection Argument, such as its exclusive definition of all learning as recollection and the negative perception of the body. Finally, I will assess the strength of Socrates’ premises and the conclusion to reach an overall evaluation of the argument that established a strong foundation

Plato’s Apology tells the account of the trial of the philosopher Socrates. It is Plato’s account of what Socrates said against the charges they were being brought to him and his pursuit of his own innocence throughout the trial. The charges that are being brought up against him are that he is damaging the youth by corrupting them, accusation of his belief in the gods and teaching about gods that were not accepted by the State, they believe he is trying to change religion, while also accusing him that he will not prove to the court that he did not perform in these action. From the beginning, he asks not to be interrupted while he speaks and as he speaks his accusers seem to be taken back by his words. At the end Socrates changes in a sense

The world we live in is filled with crime, evil, and injustice, but do people have the desire to do bad things knowing that they are bad, or do they do them thinking that they are good? In this essay, I examine Socrates argument, found in Plato’s Meno, that no one knowingly desires bad things. If Socrates were right, it would mean that it is impossible for someone to perform a bad action based on their desire for that bad thing. Instead, all bad desires result from the ignorance of the person performing the action in falsely believing that the action is good. Though Socrates presents a compelling argument, I argue that it is possible for someone to act badly, all the while knowing that what they desire is bad. In order to establish my thesis, I will start by stating and explaining the argument that Socrates presents, I will

We deny the progression of humanity by denying a condition that makes us human. Which is the ability to evaluate and question life through our own eyes. An ability that Socrates argued for which ultimately led to his death. In this paper, I will highlight the importance of “The Apology” and how it contributed to its field as well as why it is still relevant today.

Part A- Socrates In thinking of Socrates we must recognize that what we have is four secondhand sources depicting him. That of Plato, Xenophanes, Aristophanes, and Aristotle. All having radically different accounts on Socrates and his views. Out of all them we consider Plato’s to be the most possible account, even though we face a problem of different versions of Socrates.

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.