In spite of this claim, Socrates was truly only showing the court that he really did not know much more than his name. 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.
Is Death a Blessing? Thinking Critically about Socrates’ Argument in Apology In the piece of work, Apology, Socrates argues whether death is a blessing or not and why he believes it to be true. After examining this argument thoroughly, we decided that Socrates makes a good inductive argument about death being a blessing. While writing this paper, we have evidence that the argument is inductive because it is his opinion that death is actually a blessing. Socrates also states in the work, “There is good hope that death is a blessing…” (40c) which makes it known that it is not fully certain, but that is what he believes.
Montag killed Beatty he thought what he was doing was right. Montag was justified for killing Beatty because he thought he was protecting himself and Faber, Beatty had to die for society to change, and Beatty wanted to die. Montags anger towards Beatty may have persuaded his decisions and made him do what he did to Beatty. In the event that Montag killed Beatty, he was justified because he was protecting Faber and himself. In Fahrenheit 451, Ray Bradbury explains that Beatty kept pushing Montag’s limits.
By vocalizing the idea of them dying a melancholy death , similar to one of a slave, an idea placed in Brutus’ head where he will die a horrible death, because of Caesar, and makes him persuaded to like Caesar less. Ethos is also used in this passage. Ethos is the credibility of the speaker and their information. The technique is not often used during this passage, but can still be found. For example, Cassius tells Brutus two stories of Caesar where he had a personal experience with him.
In the text, "In reality, I was just a man who got somebody mad-- mad enough to want to kill him-- and survived it. Maybe it should end there"(Busby 317). This is the moment in the novel where John realizes that he does not have to retaliate back at Meyer for what he did. This is the moment when John realizes that the right thing to do it to forgive. Forgiveness is an option that is often looked on as weak, but it can actually be a very enlightening
Brutus was a man who honestly believed that by killing Julius Caesar he was doing right by the people of Rome. Brutus ' speech show that his loyalty is given first to Rome then to his close friends. He is justifying the death of Julius Caesar. He used ethics to persuade the audience that killing Caesar is the right thing to do because it
In the chapter about death, Nagel explored the meaning of death, what death really means to a personal from the inside and outside, how we look at death in terms of good and bad, and if we should fear it or not. He speaks about death from the scientific and spiritual perspective, and one’s thought process as it relates to both. The most profound part is when he discusses what actually happens to one when they die; the varying perceptions of life after death and is there really a life after death considering you no longer exist. Overall, I found the material to be very interesting and thought provoking; not to say I agree with all of what has been said, but I do agree with some of the questions asked and the fact the we shouldn’t perceive death to be this scary annihilation. Nagel states “Everybody dies, but not everybody agrees about what
In Plato’s Crito, Socrates has a conversation with Crito, who’d come to visit Socrates in his jail cell. As Socrates had been anticipating his death, one personality trait he exhibits is a very pragmatic sense of thinking. In their conversation, Socrates spoke on his awaited execution saying, “It's because it would be out of tune, Crito, to be angry at my age if I must finally die.” This quote shows a tremendous amount of wisdom and it illustrates the peace of mind that he’d consistently carried with him. Death is a concept that can be mentally straining to gloss over for even the smallest of times; that being said, the fact Socrates is able to look at such a daunting theory and still have the ability to remain as level-headed as he did
One last point is that Socrates in The Apology, speaks of a certain wisdom he possesses. He specifically tells the jury that the story of this wisdom he possesses did not originated from him, but from the god of Delphi, the oracle himself answers the question “if any man was wiser than Socrates” the oracle response to the question was that no one was wiser. (Plato, Apology pg. 24, 21a) Now, in Phaedo, Socrates speaks to Simmias about certain knowledge we possess before birth, but lost it at birth, hence even if not directly mentioned in the Apology, Socrates philosophy of the soul existing before birth was proven here. With that said, this can explain Socrates’ love for philosophy, he was born a philosopher and his soul left its human body
By observing the monologues with a superficial glance, one is lead to an arguably superficial motivation for each character. Hamlet seeks the sweet release of death and questions that if he were to “end the heart-ache” due to his father’s passing, that it would be worth the payment of his soul in Hell. The motivation of the contemplation for suicide then is perceived as heart-ache, and the tone of it underlies the monologue, such as when Hamlet mentions “the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,” implying a poor drawing of fate due to his father’s murder (3.1.58). The other option debated in the monologue, to murder Claudius rather than himself, does not arise until much later in it, it being first referenced in