He wanted to create an impact on humanity by relying on the truth and shining a light in people’s lives, even if they put him on trial. Socrates defended himself and showed the truth by standing up for what he believed in. By doing this, he was put to death. Socrates effectively used the three acts of the mind to rebut the charges made against him at trial. Socrates used the first act of the mind: understanding.
Stephen King and Socrates show a great deal of similarities in their writing. King and Socrates are intellectual thinkers and both authors prove this to be true. In “On Being Condemned To Death”, by Socrates, the author delivers the speech in the belief that the speech wasn’t delivered for a lack of ingenuity, but more so lack of impudence. Socrates believed that he would be disgracing himself if he lowered his standards to not deliver one last speech. There is an ample amount of evidence that suggests Socrates delivered his death speech in order to not outrun death, but to outrun wickedness, which was far more dangerous.
Socrates was endlessly determined to question as many people as possible, and even more so determined in aiding the questionee to achieve non biased logic in their thinking, while showing that what the claim to know, they do not really. For example, when Socrates was questioning Euthyphro about how he concluded what’s pious and what’s not, he kept asking what Euthyphro meant meant by his responses: “So you did not answer my question, you surprising man” (Euthyphro 8a). In saying that Euthyphro didn’t answer his question, Socrates was essentially asking yet again for him to clarify
She sees the constitution as evolving because the constitution should apply to the people who now have and deserve the right to be a part of “We the people”. Ginsburg has endured some of Scalia’s lack of respect in the form of vicious insults. Luckily for him, the comments do not offend her. With a natural first reaction of exasperation, she takes his words as a challenge. This challenge is to make him look as though his views portray the insults that he vomited.
Throughout our lives, we are faced with challenges that require us to persuade the trust and support of our peers and followers. Whether speaking or writing, we can earn this certitude through the manipulation of rhetorical strategies. In his speech, the Inquisitor evokes a cognitive, rational response through logos and conjures an emotional response through pathos while demonstrating his own reliability and competence through ethos. In order to provide his message with consistency and clarity, the Inquisitor adds logic to his reasoning regarding Joan of Arc's fate. He warns the audience that Joan will rightfully suffer the most cruel and just punishment that the men of the court have ever seen due to her mindless treason and disrespect
Therefore, he believes that he should stay and face his execution because it is better to die than to live with a ruined soul. Socrates uses all of these points to support his main argument which is that escaping jail would be morally incorrect. Crito accepts his arguments and Socrates decides he is going to
Persuasion is the key to success. However, to achieve the best outcome, many things play a role, some of which include logos, ethos and pathos. In the book Twelve Angry Men, jurors brought their ideas to the table through different perspectives. Having facts and evidence shows that you know what you talking about, and have looked further into the topic. The best persuasive appeal presented in Twelve Angry Men was logic.
To realize what is just and unjust to get a bigger picture of who we might gather opinions from. Who we regard as wise and unwise. Crito should seek the answer of the wise. Just as Socrates says in this passage. “Then, my friend, we must not regard what the many say of us: but what he, the one man who has understanding of just and unjust, will say, and what the truth will say.”
I believe that Socrates may be guilty of trying to corrupt the young people because he did encourage them to ask questions and not follow others’ blindly. Socrates did not overtly challenge the gods and their word, however he did encourage people, especially young people, to make their own opinions based on various information, and, in the end, follow their own thoughts. I feel as though the types of questions Socrates was asking were not harmful because he was only testing Euthyphros on how he knew all of his facts, and wanted proof of his opinions. Therefore, I believe people should question, should analyze information, and should form their own judgments rather than listening to someone else’s opinion and blindly following that
Individuals on the jury often justify their views to avoid challenges. Juror 3 was intimidating the other jurors, trying to convince them to stick with the guilty verdict. Juror 2 was guilty of self-censorship agreeing with the rest of the group to influence his decisions. The whole group began with the illusion of unanimity. According to Janis illusion of unanimity is, “the majority view and judgments are assumed to be unanimous.” (Psysr.org,