When it comes to justice, Polemarchus believes that justice is “…helping friends and harming enemies.”. Socrates questions this point of view because according to Polemarchus’ view point, only the people who are close to him and in his circle of friends would be worthy of any kind of Justice. Polemarchus is wrong in this viewpoint because if only the people that you know who are of your similar social status and you interact with on a day to day basis are considered friends, what of those that you do not know? Or what of those who are not of your social status, that you do not interact with? Socrates questions this by asking, “Do you mean by friends those who seem to be good to an individual, or those who are, even if they don't seem to be, and similar with enemies?”.
In this first narrative Plato is in the words of Professor Jeff McEwen “acting as a court scribe.” Plato is writing down Socrates defense and the responses of his accusers. The question here is, why did Plato write Apology? Plato was one of Socrates’ followers he believed that Socrates was wise and he would turn this event into a testimony of the injustice done to Socrates and the wit of the man he had learned so much from. This book would show
The eyes of many, Socrates argued, were of no importance because one should shadow the wise, and pay little importance to public opinion. Socrates states “if the many could do the greatest evil; for then they would also be able to do the greatest good--and what a fine thing this would be! But in reality they can do neither; for they cannot make a man either wise or foolish; and whatever they do is the result of chance” (Plato). I believe that this statement forces Crito to look at the bigger picture. To realize what is just and unjust to get a bigger picture of who we might gather opinions from.
“Plato Apology” relates the trial of Socrates (469-399) B.C.E known as the father of Western Philosophy. Socrates, a son of sculpture and the midwife had a queer with most Athenians due to his point of view on values and beliefs. Charged with impiety and corrupting the Youth, Socrates’ defends himself by persuading the jury of his innocence with tangible reasons which made his arguments effective. In the reading of “Plato Apology”, Socrates’ vindicates what he values and beliefs to a jury to prove his innocence. Indeed, Miletus a poet, Anytus a craftsmen and Lycon a politician brought an oral charges against Socrates’ attested him of impiety and corrupting youth, required him to appear before the King Archon the legal
There was a moment in the Apology, where Socrates discussed how he was told by the God of Delphi that he was the wisest man. Socrates did not believe this to be true, so he went on a search for someone wiser. It was through this search that Socrates discovered the ignorance that came with “wise” men. He started by seeking out the wisest men he had heard of who were politicians. This led him to discover that men who are considered wise by others ,and by themselves, often
Plato, a student of Socrates, wrote Gorgias in 380 B.C. In this dialogue, Socrates seeks the true definition of rhetoric and attempts to discover the nature of this art. He questions Gorgias, Polus, and Callicles on its meaning, as well as its use. In the following paragraphs, it will be shown why Socrates holds to the opinion that rhetoric is a useless form of flattery. The dialogue opens with Socrates arriving at the house of Callicles.
People such as Eryximachus would prefer to be led by a love that can be seen in bodily reactions. That is the good that he sees. People such as Aristophanes would prefer to be guided by the idea that their other half is somewhere out there, having a concrete person that they are looking for and they will know once they have that person. That person they are looking for is the goodness that they are guided towards. Socrates’ widespread idea can still be taken in multiple different interpretations as it applies to each
As Petrie stated in the postscript, he starts by establishing credibility with his experiences as a student and educator and presenting both sides of his argument to gain the respect of his audience. His “sharply split opinions” signaled to the audience that his essay could go either way. By starting off with his primary research, he gained the reader’s attention enough that he or she would continue reading, despite their own opinions on the topic. His purpose for writing was driven by his numerous ordinary, but detrimental, experiences with college athletes as a student and as an educator. One sentence that reveals his purpose is, “It’s sad to see bright young athletes knowingly compromise their potential and settle for much less education than they deserve.” The last paragraph also shows Petrie’s purpose.
What he thought was a normal friendship was actually a very unhealthy relationship between two people that was eventually ended by jealousy. Their friendship proves that in order to have a healthy relationship you must be true to who you are and stick to what you believe in. Identity is an important factor in life, and not knowing yours affects more than just yourself. Gene and Finny’s relationship is a reflection of real life friendships. While most friendships don't end in one person killing the other, the novel A Separate Peace still teaches the reader what not to do in order to make a friendship
Hijinks are often considered as silly and boisterous, but not particularly useful in any way. That’s the way that Ray treats Jonathan. Jonathan isn’t a person who is going anywhere, and Ray doesn’t want him to go anywhere, because all he requires from Jonathan is amusement. If Jonathan becomes a better person, he won’t be as amusing to Ray, so it is possible that unconsciously Ray tries to stunt him from growing into a better person. Ray and Clare don’t even react when Jonathan was found like this by Emily.