Throughout the time the name of Justice has been wandering in the pathway, which is alike to the sinusoid. Every society changes the concept of justice, and it is of high possibility that there is no justice in the vacuum at all. Thus, how can the people of another society with different perceptions judge Socrates, whose ideas were the basement of theirs; how can they judge objectively without experiencing and living in the Athenian democracy? Therefore, this essay is quite subjective because of the only one source that was given to the world with the help of the Plato, the famous and faithful student of Socrates. In order to dig out the truth it is necessary to discuss and describe both options: first, if Socrates was guilty, and, second, …show more content…
It is necessary to admit that it is more likely for Socrates to be guilty more from ruler’s perspective rather than from people’s. He was charged with corrupting the youth. If to be more accurate, he was educating Athenians things which were forbidden, which did not coincided with the general philosophy of the state. By believing in different gods Socrates undermined Athenian traditions. In turn, it could have been treated as disrespect. According to the ‘Apology’ by Plato, Socrates tried to defend himself, but he manipulated with crowd’s attention by pointing only to the affiliation of the daimonia to the traditional Gods, but not to the believing directly in that Gods (West et al. 1998). Furthermore, educated person can think differently, can analyze government’s decisions and act in a new unknown manner. If every single person, whom Socrates educated, started to question the Athenian governors and what is said to be truth, it would directly shatter the safety of the state. As it known, safety is of the highest priorities of …show more content…
Two implications have their own lives, and each argument makes the implications appear more possible. However, the question remains: was Socrates guilty? It is of great importance to explain one crucial point. Democracy means the power of the people, of the citizens. Thus, it is already meant that the people create the state and not vice versa. Therefore, the more intelligent people are, the more intelligent the state is. Despite the fact that nowadays people look at the world through new different lenses, the words of Socrates still find their echo. In such a way, it can be concluded that Socrates was mistakenly found guilty, because his progressive ideas, even that he was punished for them, led to the present society we have now. As it known, any law can be proposed by any citizen. Of course, then the proposal should be accepted by higher legislative bodies; nevertheless, if a citizen has a right to introduce a law, he certainly has a right to have his own opinion and to talk freely. Loren Samons assessed the event of Socrates execution as a failure of understanding the meaning and potential of their own democracy (Samons 2004). Thus, if citizens have a right to initiate a law, intelligence plays even more important role. People should be educated and intelligent to create such laws that could serve the public good. Socrates was the one who was willing to educate, because he was the one who really loved the wisdom, he was a true philosopher. If
Socrates defended himself well during the trial. I do not think that Socrates was guilty for anything. He was accused by Meletus for "corrupting the young”. However, there was no evidence of this. Socrates mentioned that there was no youth to testify that they were corrupted by him.
In this paper I will argue that Socrates’s argument at 50a-b of the Crito would be not harming his fellow citizens by breaking the laws. Based on the readings from Plato’s The Five Dialogues, I will go over the reasoning of Socrates’ view on the good life. I will then discuss the three arguments Crito has for Socrates regarding his evasion of the death sentence including the selfish, the practicality, and the moral arguments. I will deliberate an objection to the argument and reply to the objections made in the paper and conclude with final thoughts. Socrates argues in the Crito that he should not escape or disobey the law because it is unethical.
So when asking whether or not his claim is plausible, we can see from the Apology and Crito that his enemies would say no, while his friends would say yes. In this paper, I argue that Socrates had lived a life no
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.
Since the day of the judgment between Athens and Socrates in 399 year B.C. many historians, philosophers, and students wonder to know whether Socrates was Guilty. Philosopher was accused in corrupting the youth, not believing in the recognized gods and introducing new divinities and in the rejection of civic life in democratic society. It is very difficult to answer on this question, may be even impossible. In my opinion, there are three types of people: 1.
Socrates & Snowden Socrates was a true believer that true pleasure only comes when individuals live a moral life. He believed that an individual’s inner life, or the soul, is the most important part of life. Each person must keep his or her soul healthy, by seeking truth, self-knowledge, justice, and goodness. Socrates believed that any soul in search of fame, wealth, and power becomes ignorant, sickly, and weak (Claudia, 270). He was concerned with strengthening his inner self by examining and criticizing it.
Through becoming a teacher of the young men who followed him in Athens, Socrates effectively began to enter the public life. He was able to influence others through sharing his conclusions of justice, self-examination, and piety, and by asking relentless questions. Socrates effectively showed that an individual can live a private and a public life, even if Socrates was not directly involved in the policy-making in Athens. An individual can combine these two aspects of life in a productive way allowing her/him to live a full existence. These individuals can become teachers, politicians, and activists who use their focus on justice and piety in their private lives to advocate and create laws that promote true justice for the rest of the
Political activists and philosophers alike have a challenging task of determining the conditions under which citizens are morally entitled to go against the law. Socrates and Martin Luther King, Jr. had different opinions on the obligation of the citizens in a society to obey the law. Although they were willing to accept the legal punishment, King believed that there are clear and definable circumstances where it would be appropriate, and sometimes mandatory, to purposely disobey unjust laws. Socrates did not. Socrates obeyed what he considered to be an unjust verdict because he believed that it was his obligation, as a citizen of Athens, to persuade or obey its Laws, no matter how dire the consequences.
Socrates and Pericles had extremely differing views about Athenian life. Pericles was a Politician, whereas Socrates was a philosopher. In “The Funeral Oration of Pericles”, Pericles contradicts himself a lot. While in “The Apology of Socrates”, Socrates does not go back on what he said in the past. He stands by everything he has said.
Comparing Socrates words in the Republic for the philosopher to rule to the words of the Apology where philosophy is viewed as something that is punishable by death, this is where the defense or importance of philosophy is realized. For if the philosophers were the ones to rule, nobody would question whether or not what they were doing was right or wrong because the philosopher-kings make the rules through wisdom and knowledge. Plato wants to paint a portrait of the philosopher as not only something the city should want to have, but also as someone who would be fit to rule above all others. This contrasts, again, to the points made by the jurors to Socrates in the Apology for they saw Socrates as someone who brings the city
Socrates believes that justice benefits the just, but also benefits the city (other people) too. He is faced with a seemingly simple choice, escape Athens or remain in prison and be sentenced to death. Socrates’ central argument against escaping his circumstances is twofold. First, Socrates argues that “one must never do wrong.” (49b)
Socrates’s official new charge “asserts that Socrates does injustice by corrupting the young, and by not believing in the gods in whom the city believes, but in other daimonia that are novel” (24b, p. 73). By looking deeper into the dialogue of The Apology and Euthyphro, one can see how passionately Socrates strives to express to the Athenian people his innocence in teaching the youth and worshiping of the gods. Socrates maintains his innocence in teaching the youth for three reasons. Primarily, there is no proof or evidence from past examples in which Socrates has taught the youth because no one has come out and said so. Socrates brings up a valid point that his so-called ‘teachings’ haven’t changed over time and therefore if he is accused
Making enemies and becoming the topic of conversation, the Athenians began to view Socrates as a threat to their beliefs and way of life and sought to end it. In order to end this, Socrates was accused of blasphemy (Mod1SlideC7). Socrates’s accusers took him to court and after Socrates did not play their game by asking to be sent into exile, and in the end, he was sentenced to death. After reading the textbook and Plato’s writing influenced by Socrates, I realized that in the period of his life Socrates was indeed truly a threat to the Athens society, because he looked for answers that no one else bothered to find which challenged their culture.
According to Socrates perspective, the democracy of Athens was corrupt and even though they courts were made in such a way that everyone was judged fairly, it wasn’t such because there were no rules or principles set forth. When a person was brought to court in the Athenian court and the person spoke against the jurors or offended them, he or she could be prosecuted based on that. In summary, judgment was passed based on emotion rather than on justice. In the Apology, Socrates stated, “my present request seems a just one, for you to pay no attention to my manner of speech-
I believe that Socrates is innocent because he defends himself truthfully with effect. He uses sound arguments and he is passionate about philosophy. Socrates did nothing to gain in life and did not want a high social standing. Socrates is fair and uses correct methods of arguments by uncovering the