I am going to discuss these ideas as I think that doing injustice is not as bad as suffering injustice. Socrates in his dialogue was pushing further with the idea that it is worse to do injustice than to suffer injustice, a clime which was objected by Polus. For Polus says that many people who do injustice are happy, but Socrates insists otherwise. Socrates focuses on Eudaimonia, which means happiness, as the main objective to reach. Thus the people who do injustice like kings and tyrants are unhappy.
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.
Socrates should be considered a tragic hero because he had an intellectual error, not an ethical one. I think that it is a little ironic that Socrates, the man who was all about intellect, had an intellectual error. Socrates was a man who focused on the truth, and unfortunately he failed to realize that the truth might not be what everyone else was focused on. In relation to what I stated earlier here is some in text evidence; Socrates said “to disregard the manner of my speech- it doesn't matter how it compares- and to consider and concentrate your attention upon this one question, whether my claims are
In Meno, Meno and Socrates are discussing Virtue and attempting to develop a definition of what Virtue is. At one point in the dialogue Meno states that Virtue is “desiring fine things and being able to acquire them” Baird and Kaufmann, 156). In their attempts to analyze this definition they discuss evil, what it is and whether or not it is ever desired by people. I will use this discussion to answer the beginning question from Plato’s perspective and show that, through Socrates and Meno, Plato demonstrates that evil is a form of ignorance, and as we know from Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, ignorance is one of the most damaging states a human can exist in. In On Free Will, Augustine comes to a very similar conclusion.
The eyes of many, Socrates argued, were of no importance because one should shadow the wise, and pay little importance to public opinion. Socrates states “if the many could do the greatest evil; for then they would also be able to do the greatest good--and what a fine thing this would be! But in reality they can do neither; for they cannot make a man either wise or foolish; and whatever they do is the result of chance” (Plato). I believe that this statement forces Crito to look at the bigger picture. To realize what is just and unjust to get a bigger picture of who we might gather opinions from.
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 “Apoligy” Socrates refused to admit his accusation, but in “Crito” he chose to accept the death instead of escaping. His value towards justice can be reflected by much of his word that “justice” is not limited to individuals but at a higher level; it is like a shared value inside all human being. When Crito said his worry of “shameful reputation” of spending money for friend”, Socrates asked him why he needed to consider other people’s opinions. “The best people, who are more deserving of our attention, will believe that the matter was handled in just the way it is.” (44c) His persistence of his own belief of justice may be one reason that supports his defending himself from the accusations. On the other hand, he weighted the public opinions
The purpose behind Socrates cross-examination technique was to inquire and open a discussion based on asking and answering questions, to stimulate deeper thought and critical thinking of ideas discussed to counter the charges and make them seem invalid. The implementation of this cross-examination technique occurs when Socrates asks Meletus, “Tell me, my good sir, who improves our young men?”(Apology 24e). Meletus getting embarrassed in front of the jury by Socrates with the claims and comments like, “You see, Meletus, that you are silent and know not what to say” and simply answers, “The laws,” which was not a good enough answer to counter Socrates claims. At this point Socrates began to change the perspective of the trial with some simple intelligent questions. With the consistent questioning of Socrates, Meletus accepted that members of the assembly were all good influences on the youth, but considering the assembly admits all adult males, he mistakenly claims and admits that the entire population of Athens was a positive influence on the youth, except Socrates.
Hamartia is used to argue Sophocles’s point of arrogance in hiding the truth. An example of this is in the plot when Oedipus claims that others are against him because their truths are against his own opinion in the end (18-27). This proves Sophocles's point by showing even though Oedipus had saved the city of Thebes the way
Plato wants readers to know if Socrates deserved the death penalty for his teachings. Throughout the article ethos, pathos, and logos is shown. Upon reading the article, readers can find ethos by the author being a follower instead of a leader. The title of this article is very obvious to others because Socrates was the main character of the article. Logos is used to make an argument,