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.
In this second quote, Socrates is saying that he possesses a certain wisdom given to him by the god to spread his philosophy and belief in the city of Athens. Here is a third piece of evidence to support my point from “ The Apology”. “Afterwards I went to talk to one person after another, sensing how odious I had become to them. I was sad and fearful; but I felt it was necessary to make the god’s work my highest priority.” (Lines 56-58)
The discourse of Socrates and Euthyphro In Euthyphro, Plato recites a conversation Socrates has with Euthyphro by “the Porch of the King” (Plato, 41). The Greek philosopher and his religious interlocutor Euthyphro mainly talk about the true meaning of piety, although it is less of a conversation and more of Socrates challenging Euthyphro, after the latter claimed that he knew everything about religious matters, and therefore piety. Socrates explains his need for Euthyphro to teach him by explaining that this would help him defend himself against the “indictment” he faces because of Meletus (Plato, 45).
The discourse between Socrates and Euthyphro clearly depicts a dilemma when it comes to the question on holiness, moral goodness and the will of God. While Euthyphro is of the opinion that what is dear to the gods is holy, and what is not dear to them is unholy, (Indiana University 6) Socrates seems to be of a different opinion. This discourse occurs at a time when there is a belief in many gods in Greece, each god having different duties. The gods are also known to disagree on a number of issues. Socrates, in trying to counter Euthyphro’s idea he opines that since the gods disagree, they must have different concepts of what is ethical and what is not.
Socrates compares himself as a gadfly, because it represents him fulfilling Heraclitus 's challenge of not living one 's life as a sleepwalker. A sleepwalker is a person who is not stimulated to think critically or reflect upon life. Heraclitus warned "One ought not talk or act as if he were asleep" meaning Just doing day to day tasks is not enough for one 's intellectual development or to enrich one 's life. A gadfly is defined as an annoying, biting insect that attaches itself to a horse who needs arousing. Socrates wanted to arouse individuals to make the mind awake and alert.
Socrates’ Arguments in the Crito In The Crito, Socrates argues that he should not escape prison because it would be morally incorrect. He says that the really important thing is not to live but to live well. Therefore, by escaping prison, not only will he suffer the consequences but also his family, his friends, and the city of Athens. Socrates argues that the city of Athens would be affected if he escapes from prison.
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.
HUM2225 Dr. Hotchkiss September 30, 2016 Moral Insight Plato’s Euthyphro is based on a lesson between Socrates and Euthyphro outside of the Athenian court about the definition of pious or impious. Euthyphro was surprised to see Socrates there and even more curious to find out why he was there. Socrates explained that the court was persecuting him for impiety because Meletus was spreading rumors about him corrupting the Athenian youth. Euthyphro explains to Socrates that he was there to prosecute his father for murdering a farm worker named Dionysus.
Plato wrote this book to show that everyone needs to challenge their knowledge, or assumed knowledge. He wants us to challenge our beliefs of everything, and not make conclusions of anything. He not only wants us to question our thoughts, but other people’s thoughts too. He shows us with Socrates that you have to not only be open minded towards others beliefs, but you also need to take it in, analyze what they said, and seek the truth and what makes complete sense. His writing relates a lot to our reading in class, Think Critically, “A truth seeker asks probing questions to follow reasons and evidence wherever they may lead” (Gittens and Facione, 2016, P.23).
In Plato’s dialogue Phaedo, he explains the soul and comes to the conclusion that the soul is immortal. Through describing the last hours of Socrates life before his execution, he lays out three arguments in support of the idea that while the body may cease to exist the soul cannot perish. In this paper, I will explicate Socrates three arguments for the immortality of the soul and their objections. Then I will argue on the presupposition of the Law of Conservation of Mass, that the universe, entailing the soul, must be cyclical. The Law of Conservation of Mass
To be just or to be served an injustice and obey, this is the very basis of the philosophical dialogue between Socrates and Crito. The Crito begins as one of Socrates’ wealthy friends, Crito, offers Socrates a path to freedom—to escape from Athens. Through the ensuing dialogue, Socrates examines, as a man who is bound by principles of justice, whether an unjust verdict should be responded to with injustice. In the dialogue between Socrates and Crito, Socrates outlines his main arguments and principles that prevent him from escaping under such circumstances. Socrates is under guard when Crito visits him, thus the plan to escape.
Socrates should remain in prison after evaluating Critos arguments although Socrates’s were stronger. I’ll begin with Crito’s argument and what makes them strong, and what doesn’t. Next, I’ll focus on Socrates arguments and what makes them good and what makes them weak, mainly his focus that living with a bad soul isn’t worth living when you have a bad soul. Crito gives Socrates three arguments.
The trial and death of Socrates is a book with four dialogues all about the trail that leads to the eventual death of Socrates. The four dialogues are Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, and Phaedo. It will explain the reasoning that brought Socrates to trial in the first place and give us a glimpse into the physiological thought of this time, and in this paper will describe some of the differences today. The first of the four dialogues are Euthyphro.
In Plato's Gorgias, it is apparent that Socrates has no desire to be a good statesman as it is defined in the eyes of the Athenians. His calculation is that Athenian rhetoricians place no reliance on facts or truth, nor are these their aim. Instead, they rely on the illusion of knowledge, and this morally weakens both themselves and their audiences. It is clear however, that if he wishes, Socrates is able to match most or all of the other statesmen in Athens, as is clearly indicated by his very eloquent speech which ends the dialogue. Additionally, under his own definition of a good statesman, it is evident that Socrates is more than qualified.
Socrates is quoted as stating, “An unexamined life is a life not worth living” (38 a). Socrates was a founding figure of western philosophy, and a stable for many ideas. He lived in Athens, Greece teaching his students, like Plato, questioning politics, ethical choices, and many other things in Greek society. In the Trial and death of Socrates: Four Dialogues by Plato, it explores the abstract questioning Socrates had towards many of the normal social properties, which led to his trial, resulting in his death. The most important aspects discussed in the dialogues is the questioning of what is pious and impious, what it means to be wise, and good life.