At this point Socrates is already convicted and is given the option to counter his punishment. Instead of begging for his life, Socrates believes that the greatest good of man is to converse about virtue and examine both him and other. In Apology section 29d-30b, Socrates states that he will continue his service to god and he does not plan on stopping his questions. He will meet strangers and question them about their obsession with possessing as much wealth, reputation, and honor while forgoing the truly important things in life, such as wisdom and truth. In this argument, Socrates wants people to stop caring about wealth and the artificial things in life, but rather to focus on body and soul. Moreover, this ties back to Crito because Socrates believed that if he gave up philosophizing he would be abandoning the examined life, and without wisdom or self-knowledge he would be better off
Socrates believes that one's focus should be on what is morally right and wrong, which should be independent of what society thinks. Socrates articulates that moral right and wrong depends on our own intuition on whether we believe that our actions is inflicting evil on others. Furthermore if he escapes prison he has inflicted evil on his government because of his obligation to keep the laws of the government. Socrates continues to say that like his parents, the government deserves his obedience. I agree with Socrates that it all boils down to our morality and our own reason to what constitutes to civil disobedience.
Socrates is a man of pride. He has passion for his beliefs and values, and would rather die than give them up. When presented with the idea of the jury releasing him he states “as long as I draw breath and am able, I shall not cease to practice philosophy” (Plato 32). This shows that Socrates does not believe what he has done and what he believes in is wrong; he will continue to do what he had been put on trial for if released. This is the exact opposite of what one would say to appease the jury. Socrates is on trial because some believe what he was doing was wrong, by refusing to acknowledge that he was wrong, this speech contradicts our modern day idea of an apology.
In Apology, Socrates faces possible execution as he stands trial in front of his fellow Athenian men. This jury of men must decide whether Socrates has acted impiously against the gods and if he has corrupted the youth of Athens. Socrates claims in his defense that he wants to live a private life, away from public affairs and teachings in Athens. He instead wants to focus on self-examination and learning truths from those in Athens through inquiry. Socrates argues that "a [man] who really fights for justice must lead a private, not a public, life if [he] is to survive for even a short time" (32a). He claims that this is how he has been able to live a long life in Athens and that he never meant any harm to the state. Socrates believes that for
Socrates obeyed what he considered to be an unjust verdict because he believed that it was his obligation, as a citizen of Athens, to persuade or obey its Laws, no matter how dire the consequences. He held that upright life is the only life worth living. To him, justice was a matter of knowledge and hence, a truth aspect. Meanwhile, he honored and acknowledged his duty to obey the Laws of the state. From Socrates' perspective, Laws are absolute.
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 man that was in search of the truth about wisdom. However, it became more then just a search when it brought him to trail of accusations. As a philosopher Socrates was known to overdrawn ideas and to frustrate anyone he was talking to. He is always in search of a better idea and for anyone who has experienced Socrates could assume he is making up his own actualities. This becomes evident in “ Apology” written by Plato, where Socrates was brought in charges for corrupting the minds of the youth and not believing in the Gods.
For this week's journal entry, I would like to bring up the idea of "wisdom" in reference to Plato's Apology. Personally, I find that the way in which Socrates defends is wisdom is admirable, and although it leads to the verdict of him being killed, I think that this decision and the reaction by Socrates helps define wisdom. Socrates, in essence, says that he does not fear death because he is wise. No one knows what death is -- perhaps it may be the best thing a person gets to experience. However, a person that is unwise would approach death into thinking that it is the worst thing that can happen in life.
Socrates started his life as an average Athen citizen. His parents worked, making an honest living. But as Socrates grew up, he began to realize that his mind questioned things and wondered how come no one else questioned the same things or at least think about the answers to the questions that were not answered. So, as his mind kept wandering, he began to acknowledge the questions that were not answered and sought for those answers. He ended up believing and teaching things to other people, whether it went against the way the Athen government or not, he still continued his work. Making enemies and becoming the topic of conversation, the Athenians began to view Socrates as a threat to their beliefs and way of life and sought to end it. In order to end this, Socrates was accused of blasphemy (Mod1SlideC7). Socrates’s accusers took him to court and after Socrates did not play their game by asking to be sent into exile, and in the end, he was sentenced to death. After reading the textbook and Plato’s writing influenced by Socrates, I realized that in the period of his life Socrates was indeed truly a threat to the Athens society, because he looked for answers that no one else bothered to find which challenged their culture.
He put his whole life and career at risk by being a whistleblower. He was able to divulge to the public the illegal activities of the NSA in the collection of many private information transmitted through the internet. His intention was to inform everyone about the violation of the NSA in the rights of every internet user for freedom. This so-called “internet- and telecommunications-liberty” was deprived when the US government launched the PRISM
Philosophical thinking uses three acts of the mind: understanding, judgement, and reason. In order to have a sound argument all of the concepts must be applied. Socrates didn’t want to please the people by saying or doing what they wanted him to say or do. Socrates thought it was not important to seek wealth or fame; he was concerned with truth and virtue. 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.
In general, I do agree with your analysis, Socrates intentions were to leave a mark in society. In other words, to have individuals then and now take some time to “think” and seek greater knowledge. In my opinion, I can have concluded that his argument in trial serve not just as a plead to prove his innocence but as an invitation to follow his philosophy. Plato’s documentation of that event proves that Socrates did not die in vain that some was hearing his words and has cause conscience of themselves. Additionally, it can be seen that Socrates came to the wisdom of knowing himself and defending that knowledge to the
The fourth amendment protects us from many things, including the seizure of our property and possessions and unnecessary frisking. It was created to prevent the government and its branches from unlawfully violating privacy, and that’s how it should work, theoretically. Traditionally, a violation of our Fourth Amendment rights involved a physical invasion, like the seizure of papers or personal items, without a warrant. However, in this day and age, officers rarely need to physically violate this right to gain incriminating evidence. Many government agencies have a few skeletons in their closets when it comes to this. With the introduction of new technology in recent years, the government can discreetly capture evidence from electronic files,
The constitution of the United States was written in 1789 and it consists of 27 amendments. One of the amendments is the fourth. The fourth amendment states that the people have a right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures and shall not be violated without a warrant issued upon probable cause.
Socrates’ ethics were based on something of a knowledge/ignorance dichotomy. He believed that people act immorally but they do not act this way intentionally. Like all animals, Socrates believed that we act in and seek out what is in our best interests. If a person knows what is ‘good’, then their manner of behaviour will always be good, as they possess the knowledge of how to do so. If a person acts in a ‘bad’ or evil way, this is simply because they lack the knowledge of how to act in a virtuous manner. For Socrates, it was simply a case of knowledge being conducive to good behaviour, and ignorance being conducive to bad behaviour. No-one chooses to act in an evil way, according to Socrates. We aim for good behaviour but fall short of