I will provide a brief opening statement. Socrates was accused for corrupting the youth, teaching out of the charge and not believing in gods. These accusation were brought by Melatus, Anytus, Lycon and citizens of Athens. Below I will try to prove that Socrates was not guilty for corrupting young people neither willingly nor unwillingly, he was not a sophist, and also
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.
However, when the judge asked the jury to vote for the penalty; ''The jury votes in favor of the death penalty, 360 to 140'' (Woods, Ryan).This time the margin was greater because Socrates refused to give up about his philosophy and ideas about the gods. Socrates made his last speech before being led off to prison. In his last speech he divided the audience between accusers and followers. He blamed his accusers by ''putting to death Socrates, a wise man—they say I am wise, even if I am not''(Woods, Ryan) ,and he said if you have waited I will die anyway because I am an old man in seventy ,and If you have a patience I will die without any help (Woods, Ryan). Socrates by his words wanted to affect the jury and gain the mercy for not putting him to a death and change a penalty instead.
Socrates insulted and angered many people more than any “legitimate” offense ever could. He said too many things that people around him did not like and could not forgive. One of the charges brought against him was corrupting the youth of Athens. Accordingly to the words of those who complained at
Caesars fatal death by his strong governing peers may have been because Caesar’s hamartia is his arrogance, and this is shown consistently through his life span in the play. Since Caesar has a strong political following and position in Rome’s state, he has much arrogance in his personality and this arrogance is his hamartia which has a fatal ending to his life. If Caesar was more cautious about how he treated other people with little respect then maybe his arrogance would not have been hamartia. When the soothsayer warned Caesar about the Ides of March, if Caesar was not ignorant and arrogant then he would’ve believed the soothsayer which could of saved his life. With Caesar being so arrogant he believed that nothing bad would have ever happen to him, but if he noticed but the signs of what was to come in the Ides of March and how suspicious Cassius, Brutus, and the other congressmen were then he may of not come to a fatal death.
In this essay, I will present an argument that shows that Plato will convince Socrates to reconsider his decision to receive the death sentence. Plato would show Socrates that his three reasons for staying to receive his sentence is unjust because his action is fuelled by injustice. I will also show that Socrates will agree with Plato about the unjust consequences that his actions may bring after Plato reasons why Socrates is doing an injustice. Finally, Plato would then proceed to show Socrates that his decision to stay cannot result in happiness and justice which in turn will cause Socrates to re-evaluate accepting his death sentence according to his own ideals of a happy and just life. The first reason Socrates gives for accepting his death sentence is the fact that Athens has provided him with education.
In The Apology by Plato, Socrates is being accused of three things; “he busies himself studying things in the sky and below the earth; he makes the worse into the stronger argument, and he teaches these same things to others” (19b). Socrates begins his defense immediately criticizing his accusers of being dishonest and speaking no truth in their case. He then begs for the jury’s forgiveness for not speaking the correct style of language, being unfamiliar with the type of dialogue used in a law court, since it is his first time at the age of seventy. He explains that this is not the first time accused, but that he has had to defend himself against lying accusations for years. He addresses that his reputation and wisdom all started because of
Throughout the rise of Socrates and his philosophies, he had many accusers. Many who used his own words against him, catching him in a contradictory position. Plato was one these accusers, alongside Meletus, Anytus and Lycon. Plato had a very well known philosophy called the Apology. In order to understand the governing question that is being raised here: Is Socrates guilty or not guilty of the charges brought against him by his accusers (Meletus, Anytus, and Lycon)?
Socrates, one of the most well known philosophers of this period, was persecuted for another core Athenian value - freedom of speech. Accusals between Anytus, Meletus, and Polycrates all include the same reasons mainly that Socrates has done an “injustice by corrupting the young, and by not believing in the gods in whom the city believes” (Plato Apologia 24b). The former charge can be attributed to Socrates’ position as a teacher of many students from affluent families who were deemed to have wronged Athenians. Students like Alcibiades and Critias, the latter a leader of the Thirty Tyrants, which took oligarchical rule of Athens after their loss of the Peloponnesian War. The Thirty Tyrants went on to terrorise Athens until their they were overthrown, but due to the democratic nature of Athens they could not be punished for their actions directly.
One of the greatest philosophers Plato, author of Phaedo, which is about the last words interchanged by his teacher, Socrates, who was sentenced to die by poison. Socrates had always questioned everything, as he said in Ancient Philosophy of Religion: The History of Western Philosophy of Religion, “.....”(...). In the story of Plato, Socrates talks about death and what happens after it. Socrates embraces the idea of death because it is the nature of life then we soon or later faces to death. Socrates “desire to prove to [people] that the real philosopher has reason to be of good cheer when he is about to die and that after death he may hope to obtain the greatest good in the other world.” (94).
What is perhaps most unconventional about this rhetoric style defense is that it is exactly that, a defense –not an apology. It does not mean an "apology" by our current, English understanding of the word. The name of the dialogue derives from the Greek "apologia," which translates to “defense”, or a speech made in defense. Plato’s The Apology accounts for Socrates’ defense at a trial which he is charged with not recognizing the Gods, therefore creating new deities and corrupting the minds of the youth in Athens.
Justice is not something that is practiced on its own, but something one does out of fear and weakness.” But the badness of suffering is far exceeds the goodness of doing it.” Glaucon appeals to the thoughts of experiment. Invoking the legend of the ring of Gyges, he asks us to imagine that a just man is given a ring which makes him invisible. Once in possession of this ring, the man can act unjustly with no fear. Glaucon claims,
In Plato’s Apology, Socrates defended his charges of corrupting the youth by saying he was only providing service to the god that acknowledged him of being wiser than anyone else. However, Socrates was eventually sentenced to death and his thoughts regarding death soon followed. He argues that death is not a bad thing – it is either relocation to a pleasant afterlife or the end of existence. One could easily reason that relocation to any form of heaven is considered good. On the other hand, it would be very reasonable to assume that death being the complete end of existence is an extremely bad thing.
The first concept that I noticed shared by Russell and Socrates was the concept that one had to remove themselves before serious philosophical contemplation could take place. In Russell 's case, he refers to the "Self" and the "Not-Self". With Socrates, as seen in the Apology, confronting his accuser about the corruption of youth, his accuser is silent because he had not given the matter any thought. Socrates awareness of his own ignorance frees him from what Russell would refer to as "Self". I mention this because it serves as a common theme even as both philosophers differ in their messages.