Rhetorical Strategies Of Plato's Apology

He also considered that Socrates was a liar and doesn’t know what he’s talking about because in earlier discussions Socrates didn’t give a suitable answer of the definition of justice, he just asked questions that were a bit mystery, and that was his way to prove

Socrates claims that he did not consciously corrupt the youth of Athens, and he gives many reasons why he is not at fault for these actions. In his defense to the jury, he tells them that by looking at the facts, they will see Meletus is accusing him of something that is not true. The way Socrates defends himself is well-thought out and logical. He ask Meletus a serious of questions and Meletus answers, Socrates then moves on to the next question to support his claim.

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.

Furthermore, Socrates uses Miletus statement in gods since both believe in daimonia consequently; the allegation of impiety holds no water (27a-d). Socrates arguments in his defense are effective due to the fact that he exposed the real corrupters of Athens youth. Socrates continues with the questioning of Meletus, he makes a point about corruption. He says that “if one, associates with corrupt people; then this corruption will eventually spread and you yourself will become corrupt”. So if you are corrupting the very people that you associate with, then eventually you will also become corrupt.

Plato differentiates rhetoric as flattery and discovery truth. Aristotle's view of rhetoric is through an equation of dialectic plus rhetoric equals to persuasion. Aristotle is characterized as superfluous through the way of present rhetoric. For an instant, in page 178 "Rhetoric is the counterpart of dialect". Although rhetoric can be a subject

Crito Prompt In Crito, a student of Socrates, Crito, makes several arguments as to why Socrates should not drink the hemlock, but flee the city. In one of his responses Socrates explains to Crito that one should not base his decisions on the opinions of the majority. In another response, Socrates asserts that a citizen should follow the laws of the state. The state of Athens is a democracy and, as such, is ruled by the people (Cartwright). As the people are the majority of Athens, the state is comprised of the majority.

Socrates said that Euthyphro had previously stated that “gods are in a state of discord…and that they are at enmity with each other” (Socrates, 8). Socrates also says: “Then according to your argument, my good Euthyphro, different gods consider different things to be just, beautiful, ugly, good, and bad, for they would not be at odds with one another unless they differed about these subjects would they?... They like what each of them considers beautiful, good, and just, and hate that opposite of these?” (Socrates, 9). Euthyphro agrees, proving that certain things disputed by the gods would be both pious and impious due to the fact that different gods consider different things to be holy.

doing injustice. In the Dialogue of “Plato Gorgias”, Socrates is talking with Polus another of Gorgias’s followers about whether someone had to choose whether to suffer injustice or do injustice. Socrates asks “Which seems to you, Polus, to be worse, doing injustice or suffering injustice” (474c). Polus would rather do injustice but Socrates follows up with “Which is more shameful?”(474c). The more shameful option would be doing injustice because it is morally wrong to cause injustice.

Additionally, Socrates continues to use the Socratic Method to examine the second accusation against him from Meletus, impiety. Socrates asks Meletus many questions regarding his accusation and Meletus eventually admits to the jury that Socrates believes in spirits and that spirits are gods or their children (27d). Socrates then states that there is no way that the jury would believe that a

The reason why poets shouldn’t take part his “The Republic” is that poets gave information about copy world and their words were just reflection of the copy world. Therefore, it means that poems were copies of the copy and the result of it is not valuable. For Plato, poets were just madness and their poems were not truth. On the contrary, Aristotle’s idea on poetry was more positive than Plato. As I mentioned above, Aristotle believed that everything has its own essence and soul.

In the Apology, drafted by Plato, contained within the First Year Seminar anthology, the main character Socrates was convicted of several offenses. One was that “Socrates was guilty of wrongdoing in that he busied himself studying things in the sky and below the earth; he made the worse into the stronger argument, and he taught these same things to others” (Belmont University, 2016). Socrates countered with the one defense that he gained this slander because he possessed a unique kind of wisdom that others envied. In essence, who were jealous of Socrates desired to drag his name through the mud.

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.

In analyzing great Philosophical literature, few works are as famous as Plato's Apology and Allegory of the Cave. Although lesser known to the uninitiated to the world of Philosophy, but certainly no less famous or important, is Voltaire's Good Brahman. At first glance, each of these works appears quite different and only have the commonality of being older Philosophy texts. However, upon closer examination we find that they have more in common, despite their less obvious differences. In the following paragraphs, we will seek to explain each work individually and then compare and contrast both Philosopher's works.

Tristan Courtney AP Lang Mr. Sontum 2/19/15 Apology of Socrates Rhetorical Analysis The Apology of Socrates has many rhetorical devices and he uses each of them to appeal to ethos, logos, and pathos. He uses these to defend himself against the ridiculous accusation of not believing in the gods recognized by the state and also of corrupting the youth in Athens, and also to prove that their acquittal or absolution does nothing to him.

In Plato’s Apology, Socrates was defending himself in front of a jury of Athenian citizens, facing execution. He did not act as someone in his position should if they wanted to make it out alive. Throughout his speech to the jury, he was smug and unapologetic. It was clear that he didn’t believe himself to be in the wrong, but rather than making a persuasive argument for why he should be let go, he proceeds to tell a long, rambling story with the intent to dismiss members of the jury as unwise. Obviously, it is not a smart move to insult and provoke the people that have your life in their hands.