Forms Of Protest

“Plato Apology” relates the trial of Socrates (469-399) B.C.E known as the father of Western Philosophy. Socrates, a son of sculpture and the midwife had a queer with most Athenians due to his point of view on values and beliefs. Charged with impiety and corrupting the Youth, Socrates’ defends himself by persuading the jury of his innocence with tangible reasons which made his arguments effective.

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.

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

Dryzek, a deliberative democracy professor at Australia’s Canberra University, attributes Plato with putting the “ick” in rhetoric on the basis that it distorts the truth, in politics more so than elsewhere. For Plato, rhetoric was simply “…persuasion on nonrational grounds” – the polar opposite of reason. (Dryzek 320). Plato was especially at odds with Sophism, which was a method of rhetorical education aimed at teaching students the notion of “arête” (excellence), and subsequently viewed rhetoric as a sham art designed not to acquire knowledge, but to achieve a personal agenda. Ultimately, Plato believed that Sophists were engaged in rhetoric for the acquisition of power, and that Sophists may have represented the strongest, but clearly not the smartest, speakers in ancient Athens.

The story, Plato’s Apology, Socrates is on trial for spreading his knowledge on to the youth. On his trial, Socrates defends that he himself is not wise; his wisdom is entirely different from the Athenians. Socrates claims that he gained his reputation from having superhuman wisdom; on the contrary, Socrates cannot describe how he was able to gain that knowledge. As he tries to explain to the

Rhetoric can degenerate from “the question at issue” to “abusing one another.” One rhetorician becomes angry that his remark is criticized and is more concerned about winning the debate than having an investigation of truth. Rhetoric is, as Socrates calls it, a form of flattery. Socrates says to Gorgias that “the whole of which rhetoric is a part is not an art at all, but the habit of a bold and ready wit...this habit I sum under the word 'flattery'.” Throughout the entire dialogue, Socrates argues with Gorgias, Polus, and Callicles to figure out the meaning and nature of rhetoric.

Socrates and Euthyphro meet at the Agora, and begin discussing what brings them to the king-archons court. Euthyphro begins telling Socrates, that he is bringing a case against his father who murdered a servant. Socrates is astounded that Euthyphro is bringing an indictment against his father, and asks for wisdom concerning a statement of piety so that he may fight his own accusations impiety. Euthyphro first proposes that “What is dear to the gods is pious, what is not is impious.”

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.

In Ancient Greece, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle were all trying to figure out their view of how society should be and each had a slightly different version of their ideal version of the good life. The different versions of these philosophers are going up against the views of Ancient Greeks through the works of Plato’s Apology and Allegory of the Cave. In the Apology, Socrates is on trial for corrupting the youth of Athens, not believing in the Gods, and going against the sophists and their ideals version of the good life. Socrates even

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.

Peaceful resistance has been around for ages. From Ghandi’s salt march to Dr. King’s sit-ins, acts of peaceful resistance represent the ordinary performing the extraordinary. It represents the masses standing up against injustice, whether that injustice affects them or not. As Martin Luther King Jr. wrote in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Injustice in society is a common enemy.

America was founded on the idea of peaceful resistance to both laws and the government in place. When colonists wanted to show Great Britain their distaste for the King's ruling of them, they dumped many barrels of tea from British ships in Boston Harbor into the water. This ignited the revolutionary flame amid the colonies and ultimately led to the revolutionary war. Without that act of peaceful resistance, the King would not have received the message from the colonists that they were no longer going to sit quietly and let him take advantage of them by taxing them without representation and forcing them to buy British products.

When people do not agree with the law, the first instinct is to show their opinion and disapproval of the law. A lot of people will protest, sign petitions, or even peacefully resist the law. In today's society we see this everyday throughout all of the country. For example right now in the united states there is a humongous issue with authority and citizens. This matter is particularly African Americans feeling they do not get the right amount of justice from law enforcement officers.

Peaceful resistant to laws positively impacts our free society today in America because of many specific reasons. One being, it is protected under our first amendment, which allows the citizens of America to the right to petition. This right allows the people, which is what America in truth is all about, to petitions things they don´t like, or want done away with. In today's ever changing society, many people find things unjust, or unfair, and the only ways to deal with those at times is to go down the peaceful way of resisting laws. Now of course, not following a law, or breaking one is never truly the answer, but it takes only one person to make a difference, and at times, that is what is what the United States needs, a rule breaker.

Peaceful Resistance Does peaceful resistance to laws positively or negatively impact a free society? This is a question asked among all Americans since the beginning of the American Revolution. The answer to what seems to be a question with no answer is yes. Peaceful resistance is noted as a type of civil disobedience, which is the refusal to comply with certain laws as a peaceful form of protest. Whether at home, in school, or in public, citizens of the United States commit this type of disobedience.