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
A fool can be satisfied but he will not see all the aspects that Socrates will see. Thus making him ignorant to the reasons for Socrates dissatisfaction. Although Socrates claims to be ignorant himself, he is one of most respected and studied philosophers in history. This shows that he was clearly onto something with his ideals. Socrates might say that the fool’s satisfaction is not the kind that he would want, he would want a much more fulfilling satisfaction than one who seeks common wants such as wealth, fame etc… Would Socrates be satisfied if he knew the answer to every question he or someone else asked?
Plato, p. 46 The argument then leads to the understanding that men with vice realize this painful aspect of justice and are blind to its good impact on the soul. They cannot therefore, be happy. In fact, states Socrates: "…a man who is not brought to justice is more wretched than one who is." Plato, p. 47
Socrates claims that he did not consciously corrupt the youth of Athens, and he gives many reasons why he is not at fault for these actions. In his defense to the jury, he tells them that by looking at the facts, they will see Meletus is accusing him of something that is not true. The way Socrates defends himself is well-thought out and logical. He ask Meletus a serious of questions and Meletus answers, Socrates then moves on to the next question to support his claim.
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
Socrates and Aristotle, despite being related through Plato, are in fact very different people and have many differing theories. Socrates outlook on life was that we 're all inherently good, but we will do bad things on accident. For example, when talking about ignorance, Socrates believes that we do not willingly do anything wrong. We instead have two branches of ignorance: not knowing something and knowing that you don 't know, or not knowing but you think that you do know (Plato, P.561). Aristotle on the other hand, claims that there is a different outlook on the model of ignorance.
This does not have anything to do with the majority rule but with the one truth. (Crito,48a). Socrates agrees that if we can prove it is just to escape then he will. (Crito,48c.) Socrates second counter argument seems to be that you should never do wrong.
(Ambury, p.6). Socrates used this specific type of ignorance possibly to show that he was not judging or voicing his own opinion when conversing with others. With that, Socrates claimed that this ignorance he had, is that he recognized his own absence of knowledge (Ambury, p.8). One can assume that with his ability to acknowledge the state of knowing nothing, Socrates never would try to tell what was right or wrong with the moral beliefs that people had. His ignorance was very helpful, giving him an immense advantage when paired with the Socratic method.
Plato and Phadeo doesn 't give work to the meaning of connection in the soul and the right type of life. Which if gives an warning against the soul contamination with sense and pleasure by the temptations. Plato states that the nature idealize a descriptive way that gives Phadeo to take to literary have an attention to the moral massage in ones soul.
And this person, must be, among other things, sensitive, compassionate perceptive- the same features so praised in virtue ethics” (524). Statman’s comment is trying to acknowledge how a virtuous character is more fundamental to ethics than rules are. In other words, Statman is like Aristotle, claiming that principles of how one lives can not create a virtuous person. Given these points, being able to form a virtuous habit and applying it to situations will not only create a morally virtuous person but also an virtuous intellectual.