Socrates Argument Analysis

Explain and evaluate Socrates' claim in the Apology that "the unexamined life is not worth living for a human being," and briefly analyze and discuss the particular method he uses to discover the truth (i.e., dialectics or the Socratic Method), using at least two examples from Plato's Euthyphro and/or Apology. Do you agree that a human being cannot live a fully satisfying life if he or she remains ignorant, like the slavish prisoners in Plato's cave? Why or why not?

Socrates was born in fairly turbulent times. Athens had been form in the wake of the Persian invasion and was in the process of becoming an empire of itself. When the Athenians executed their remaining leadership for failing to retrieve the bodies of their comrades in a using a trial against Athenian law. two mistakes were committed. First, was weakening of their military, which they would pay for later, and the second was the disregard of their own laws. Imagine the impression this would make to an individual like Socrates. I believe the root of his

This could mean that Socrates had understood, or at least on the way to understanding what is the good and how to obtain it. This interpretation also explain Socrates´s behavior, as recounted by Alcibiades. Socrates spend most of his time either thinking(220D), or talking and philosophizing with others(221D, 222E).He seem to show extreme calmness and unrivaled self control( 221B). He does not desire physical beauty, money,power, or anything else that Alcibiades might be interested in(216E), and seem to only be concerned about giving speeches and

In Book 1 of the republic, by Plato, we are introduced to two central figures in the argument of justice, Socrates and Thrasymachus.

In this paper I will argue that Socrates’s argument at 50a-b of the Crito would be not harming his fellow citizens by breaking the laws. Based on the readings from Plato’s The Five Dialogues, I will go over the reasoning of Socrates’ view on the good life. I will then discuss the three arguments Crito has for Socrates regarding his evasion of the death sentence including the selfish, the practicality, and the moral arguments. I will deliberate an objection to the argument and reply to the objections made in the paper and conclude with final thoughts.

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

Since the day of the judgment between Athens and Socrates in 399 year B.C. many historians, philosophers, and students wonder to know whether Socrates was Guilty. Philosopher was accused in corrupting the youth, not believing in the recognized gods and introducing new divinities and in the rejection of civic life in democratic society. It is very difficult to answer on this question, may be even impossible.

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

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.”

He says, “I do not corrupt, or if I do corrupt, I do it involuntarily, so in both cases what you say is false” (26a, p. 75). He continues by saying that if he corrupts involuntarily, “the law is to bring in those in need of punishment, not learning” (26a, p. 75). This further points out Socrates’s innocence. He believes that he would need to learn of his wrongdoings rather than be punished because he doesn’t see anything wrong with his actions. In his innocent eyes, all he did was go out to talk and question the Athenian people. Although at times there may have been youth following him as he went out to question others, they simply were just there to listen. In the event that the youth may have come up with ideas of their own based off of Socrates’s conversations they heard, that is not direct teaching from Socrates. This is like when a parent tells their child not to touch a hot stove, yet the kid goes and touches it anyway. Children have a mind of their own regardless of what they have been told is right or wrong. In this instance, the children generate their own beliefs and ideas from within themselves, not through Socrates. All Socrates wants is to “take care of the young first, so that they will be the best possible, just as a good farmer properly takes care of the young plants first, and after this of the others as well” (2d, p.

The just person’s soul entails motive for certain kinds of objects the most important of which is knowledge. Socrates describes the hardship and extreme effort required to gain knowledge of the forms and the form of the good, thus the just person will seek learning and not spend time to take care of the satisfaction of desires that typically lead to unjust actions. This approach to unite the gap between a just soul and just actions may have some drawbacks. One negative aspect may be that several unjust actions may be motivated by desires that are compatible with the desire for knowledge. For example, why wouldn’t a person with a great fascination for knowledge steal a book if it would contribute to their

I believe that Socrates is innocent because he defends himself truthfully with effect. He uses sound arguments and he is passionate about philosophy. Socrates did nothing to gain in life and did not want a high social standing. Socrates is fair and uses correct methods of arguments by uncovering the

Socrates should remain in prison after evaluating Critos arguments although Socrates’s were stronger. I’ll begin with Crito’s argument and what makes them strong, and what doesn’t. Next, I’ll focus on Socrates arguments and what makes them good and what makes them weak, mainly his focus that living with a bad soul isn’t worth living when you have a bad soul.

He questions everyone who claims to have wisdom and eventually comes to either aggravate those he made to look foolish or inspired those who kept an open mind. At one point Socrates claims that his life has been no less heroic than the heroes who fought at Troy. Considering how vital heroism is to Athenian culture, this claim can be unfavorable. Most Athenians when prompted about what is a hero, will picture Achilles, or one of Homer’s other heroes, not a man who “Corrupts the youth”, or “Is an Atheist”. So when asking whether or not his claim is plausible, we can see from the Apology and Crito that his enemies would say no, while his friends would say yes. In this paper, I argue that Socrates had lived a life no

In Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, he outlines the different scenarios in which one is responsible for her actions.  There is, however, a possible objection which raises the possibility that nobody is responsible for their actions.  Are we responsible for some of our actions after all?  If so, under what circumstances?  Based on an evaluation of Aristotle’s arguments and the objection that stands against it, people are responsible for voluntary actions and involuntary actions whose circumstances or particulars they themselves have caused.