[Crito]: Obviously the harms is to his body, which it ruins”. Also, one should not rely on a multitude of opinions because of one’s experience and education with the
Finally, Socrates claims that the unjust man is ignorant, weak and bad. Socrates argument is effective in the way that he does not shatter Thrasymachus’ argument without reason, he is given many examples that change his way of thinking. Thrasymachus is told to put his ‘set in stone’ ideas under different situations, and once he does, he can clearly see that he should not have been so stubborn, as soon as he does so, he can see that his arguments aren’t suited to all situations. By the end of the argument, Thrasymachus isn’t so much debating the definition of justice, as he is defining the required traits to be a ruler of
He was proving this because throughout his speech, he made it seem like the idea of knowing the truth and having real knowledge about a subject wasn’t needed in order to achieve the goal of persuasion. In Socrates’ speech he stated, “...if I say that the unexamined life is not worth living, you’ll believe me even less... you think I’ve been convicted for lack of arguments that would have persuaded you…” Socrates never specified or went into details about his beliefs that he was presenting to the court which, revealed to them that he did not know anything. He wasn’t able to strengthen his claims by providing evidence meaning his use of logos was faulty. However, Socrates’ goal was not to gather evidence to make it seem as if he was putting all his efforts in saving his life.
Pericles was respected and liked in Athenian society, and Socrates was neither respected nor liked. Socrates questioned everything about the way people lived their lives and their beliefs. Pericles believed that Athens was the best and the way that they lived was the right way and there should be no other way of life. With the way that Pericles and Socrates lived they would clearly have different views of life. Pericles believed that Athens was superior to any other Greek city- state.
Reasoning is all the positive and opposing arguments that support or critique the thesis by using logic. Socrates was accused and charged with being a corruptor of the youth and denying the gods of the city but introducing other divinities. Socrates defends his case by using reasoning and logic. Socrates said that if every Athenian improved the youth while only he corrupts them, then is influence should not have a greater effect than all the Athenians. Socrates didn’t corrupt the youth.
Pathos is the expression of one’s emotions in order to evoke another person to feel empathy for them. In an untasteful execution, Crito accomplishes this by expounding how the eradication of Socrates will lead to a pessimistic brunt when he scorns “What it seems is that you’re letting your sons down too.” (Crito, pg. 885) trying to arrange for him a disturbance for not being there for his sons when he could have if he decided to escape and remain alive. Nonetheless, this does not arouse Socrates because he had already consulted the pros and cons; and the pros eclipsed the cons, leaving pathos
However, if a man does not know how to use their words, it is worse than having no muscles. “It is absurd to hold that a man ought to be ashamed of being unable to defend himself with his limbs, but not being able to defend himself with speech and reason, when the use of rational speech is more distinctive of a human being than the use of his limbs” (Aristotle 180). This sentence claims people who don’t know speech and reason ought to be ashamed of themselves, however, men without muscle shouldn’t be ashamed because not everybody can defend themselves with muscle. In “The Eumenides” Apollo wants to stop the Furies by brute force, but Athena decides against his choice. Athena choice works out because of the Furies become good and help Athena.
I have confidence in Socrates’ innocence, In spite of the charges brought with him by the court are rather not kidding to Athenians. Socrates’ guard against those charge that he doesn’t trust in Gods is fair What's more addition. He concedes that he doesn't trust in those Gods of the city, Anyhow he will be guided by a portion sort higher being, alternately spirits. He states, “I live in incredible neediness due to my administration with God” (23c). I totally agrarian with Socrates’ contention that the case viewing as much secularism may be false on he puts stock clinched alongside higher profound creatures.
His traits of lying, being careless, unprepared, and not thinking things throughout greatly outnumber his positive traits. Pericles was also disliked by his own people. This can be seen in a quote by Plato, a renowned Athenian philosopher "as I know, Pericles made the Athenians slothful, garrulous and avaricious..." (Plato, n.d.). Pericles was dislikes by many, and with good reason. He was an awful leader and a model for the exact opposite of a hero.
By emotionally shifting the tone of the argument to talking about the other side with a word such as “pathetic” the author is calling into question the intelligence of the other side. This feels like an attempt to emotionally manipulate the reader to their side. By resulting to a cheap tactic such as this the essay and argument as a whole is
The contradiction Gorgias makes when he said “… I supposed that if he does not posses this knowledge, he can learn these things also from me’ (460 a) is that Gorgias earlier stated that the orator is supposed to know the knowledge. That contradicted his statement because he implies, in that statement, that the orator doesn’t have the knowledge to explain. Then Gorgias would be able to know the knowledge, however, he wouldn’t be able to explain that knowledge because he wouldn’t know it. That’s why Socrates ask Gorgias “And, by this line of reasoning, isn’t a man who has learned what’s just a just man too?”
In conclusion, Socrates eventually convinces Glaucon of his vision. Glaucon was flattered, and told manipulative ideas and concepts which ultimately won him over. Glaucon went from saying “unjust” to “most true” in a few paragraphs through said persuasion. Socrates heavily believed in the role philosophers had on the state and was determined to say anything for supporters, sounding like a modern presidential nominee.
Having embarked on a quest to determine the goodness or badness of political justice, Socrates and company are led to discuss the origins of the polis (“city” or “city-state”). This discussion quickly leads to the topic of “guardians,” the class of citizens charged with defending the city’s regime against enemies, whether from without or within. What traits does Socrates claim these guardians will need to have? Why do they resemble noble, well-bred dogs? When Socrates stated that a guardian must resemble a noble, well-bred dogs because according to Socrates, a well bred dog has the ability to use its senses and be “quick to see, and swift to overtake the enemy when they see him, and strong too if, when they have caught him, they have to fight
Both Meno and Socrates evidently seemed to have contrasting attitudes in regards to the concept of virtue, as seen in the opening section of the Meno dialogue. Meno initiates the dialogue with Socrates by questioning whether or not Socrates knows what virtue is, specifically the way it is acquired by humans (Meno, 70a). However, Socrates does not give him a concrete answer, but rather a history of Thessaly (a blessed area), comparing it to Athens (a non-blessed area), in regards to wisdom (70a-71a). In Athens, nobody knows what virtue is or how it is obtained, including Socrates himself, when he says “I share the poverty of my fellow citizens in this matter.”
In today’s world, hate speech can be found with ease; you can witness it over coffee, a celebrity you follow can share hateful tweets, or a public demonstration can get out of hand. With hate seemingly running rampant, we must question what actions to take in order to resolve this issue, and how to do so without undermining the First Amendment. Hate speech, despite some negative effects, does not need further legislation enacted, as it is already addressed by several laws in place. The eradication of hate speech requires a larger social change before we can introduce further legislation. While the First Amendment protects the fundamental right of free speech, there are exceptions to this right that are currently regulated.