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 was confident, but not arrogant. He had reason to believe that he was truly the wisest, as he could not find one example to disprove the Delphi’s claim that “no one is wiser” than Socrates. (Apology 21a). Socrates wanted to assure that this claim was true before presenting this idea to others so that he did not come off as arrogant.
After reading Plato’s Apology and Crito, I can conclude that according to Socrates human virtue is knowledge (wisdom). In this paper I will present two disputes that’s Socrates uses to prove what human virtue is. In Apology, one argument Socrates makes is that he is not wise. Socrates starts this off by explaining how Chaerephon went to the god Delphi, and Delphi asked if he knew any man that was wiser
" Furthermore, his close friends and followers who agree with his way of living also testify to Socrates's success in achieving his goal. Contrasted to Socrates's relatively gradual, inwardly approach to effect change, Jeremiah's approach is abrupt and harsh, threatening the onset of disaster if Israelites do not obey God's will. Jeremiah's message was poorly received and the reason for this is twofold. First, Jeremiah is disconnected from the society he criticizes because of his divine appointment; thus, he lacks the understanding of the commoners that Socrates possesses. Second, Jeremiah's prophecy foretells an undesirable future and is delivered in a condescending manner that can provoke anger in others.
In “The Apology,” Socrates talks of his journey to find and discern what wisdom really is. Socrates had an unconventional idea of what wisdom was, compared to today’s definition of wisdom. Socrates also had different views of knowledge than what society believes today. Throughout his journey in “The Apology,” Socrates comes to the conclusion that wisdom is realizing that one knows nothing.
Those who believe that Socrates could in fact have done more to secure his own acquittal might argue that Socrates should have been more civil in his defense. Although Socrates maintained very intelligent responses and rationalizations, he could have done so in a more composed and less offensive fashion. One could argue that he could have secured his acquittal with a more understated approach. But this argument can be immediately refuted by what was quoted earlier- Socrates does best when he is
It is furthermore an interesting example of the way that people react to change and to others trying to change their worldview. Plato’s Allegory was meant to serve as a guide for other philosophers, letting them know that they, as the people escaping the cave and trying to see the real world, would be met with resistance and anger by everyday people. The allegory was an example of the ignorance of people, and how that ignorance in itself is bliss. Plato understood that people do not want to have their worldview changed sometimes, even if it is for the better in the case of a more accurate and complete worldview, and in creating the allegory, he created an extreme version of
How do their approaches to their subjects, their style of expression, and their claims differ from each other? In what ways are they similar? A: In Meno Plato was attempting to convey the idea of true virtue, and did it in a style of long form verbal examples, in the excerpt we read he walks a young student though the fallacies of logic, proving Plato’s point about truly understanding something (Or lack of understanding).
This made sense because without Socrates able to be available to give his correct reason of saying what he said the information ahead could be skewed. Thus leading to more confusion and misleading information to be butchered by one who does not fully understand what is at hand. This step will help keep order and give more insight to what is being said by both parties. STEP THREE: Once the information is received we must look into what is “hot air” and relevant to the
“How you have felt, O men of Athens, at hearing the speeches of my accusers, I cannot tell; but I know that their persuasive words almost made me forget who I was – such was effect of them; and yet they have hardly spoken a word of truth” (Plato, 399 BC). The Apology recorded by Plato has implicated what Socrates had communicated during his defense to the judges and his accusers. Socrates was ridiculed and charges brought forth to him for corrupting the youth and for his rejection of the city’s deities. In Socrates speech to his accusers and to the judges, he preserves his beliefs in all that he is and that he does and is willing to accept the penalty that is placed upon him, which is death.
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
Socrates asks Euthyphro “is the holy, holy because it is loved by the gods?” or “is something loved by the gods because it is holy?” Euthyphro was charging his father with murder. Not that he physically put his hands on one, but while another was awaiting the decision, his father left the man to die of starvation and lack of water. In Euthyphro’s eyes, his father was the murder of this man. The reason he is prosecuting his father is because he believes in the Gods and that no matter if someone is of kin if it is not right then it just isn’t right.
Rachel Kim PHIL 100 Professor Thibodeau November 10, 2016 The Euthyphro Dilemma The Euthyphro Dilemma is the questioning of the relation between God and righteous actions. Option A is that the pious is loved by the gods because it is pious. Option B is that the pious is pious because it is loved by the gods.
Section 1: question 3 Euthyphro’s Dilemma is a modernized version of the question that Socrates askes in Euthyphro: “Are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are willed by God?” This dilemma or argument proves or contradicts that the Divine command theory is wrong. The following argument order was also discussed in class, but this sequence by Jonathan Pearce seemed like a better explanation. (1) 1.