Meletus tells Socrates that he does not believe in gods at all. Socrates shows that a person cannot believe in divine activities but not in divinities. He cannot be contradicted; he cannot believe in the gods and not believe in the gods. Socrates uses reasoning and logic throughout his trial.
In Plato’s “The Apology, Socrates is on the verge of execution and must convince the jurors to make a just decision. Socrates conveys the justness of his actions through examples of what is just to the jurors as individuals, to society as a whole. He must convince them that it would be unjust to society to convict him of impiety and corruption, rather than to himself. Just actions will be analyzed with examples of courage in grave danger, how just decisions can be altered due to the irrational fear of death, and whether Socrates’ basis of his actions truly is just and compelling.
Socrates in his dialogue was pushing further with the idea that it is worse to do injustice than to suffer injustice, a clime which was objected by Polus. For Polus says that many people who do injustice are happy, but Socrates insists otherwise. Socrates focuses on Eudaimonia, which means happiness, as the main objective to reach. Thus the people who do injustice like kings and tyrants are unhappy. Socrates then asks Polus which is more shameful doing injustice or suffering it, and Polus replies that doing injustice is more shameful.
Forcing them to think differently, to question things, pushing his strange ideas upon them. This was the considered to be the main reason for his trial, but in truth the assembly just wanted to rid society of Socrates, he was considered a threat for Athenes. Thanks to his ideals, the youths of Athens realised how Athenian democracy was lacking and how weak it was. Socrates’s words “ To start of the trial, Socrates went on to say that he will deal with one accusation at a time, and immediately he pointed out one of the accusations, “be careful not to be deceived by an accomplished speaker like me” (The Apology. Plato.
The eyes of many, Socrates argued, were of no importance because one should shadow the wise, and pay little importance to public opinion. Socrates states “if the many could do the greatest evil; for then they would also be able to do the greatest good--and what a fine thing this would be! But in reality they can do neither; for they cannot make a man either wise or foolish; and whatever they do is the result of chance” (Plato). I believe that this statement forces Crito to look at the bigger picture. To realize what is just and unjust to get a bigger picture of who we might gather opinions from.
I think that it is a little ironic that Socrates, the man who was all about intellect, had an intellectual error. Socrates was a man who focused on the truth, and unfortunately he failed to realize that the truth might not be what everyone else was focused on. In relation to what I stated earlier here is some in text evidence; Socrates said “to disregard the manner of my speech- it doesn't matter how it compares- and to consider and concentrate your attention upon this one question, whether my claims are
In Meno, Meno and Socrates are discussing Virtue and attempting to develop a definition of what Virtue is. At one point in the dialogue Meno states that Virtue is “desiring fine things and being able to acquire them” Baird and Kaufmann, 156). In their attempts to analyze this definition they discuss evil, what it is and whether or not it is ever desired by people. I will use this discussion to answer the beginning question from Plato’s perspective and show that, through Socrates and Meno, Plato demonstrates that evil is a form of ignorance, and as we know from Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, ignorance is one of the most damaging states a human can exist in. In On Free Will, Augustine comes to a very similar conclusion.
It does make one question what happens to the soul after one dies. While Socrates is the main protagonist, the other characters make valid arguments that provoke thoughts. This is a crucial element to the third question: What does philosophical inquiry look like? While it was never asked explicitly in the Phaedo; the question is key and resonates throughout the dialogue. It was Socrates’ goal to get his friends to practice the art of philosophical inquiry.
Socrates in the dialogue Alcibiades written by Plato provides an argument as to why the self is the soul rather than the body. In this dialogue Alcibiades and Socrates get into a discussion on how to cultivate the self which they both mutually agree is the soul, and how to make the soul better by properly taking care of it. One way Socrates describes the relationship between the soul and the body is by analogy of user and instrument, the former being the entity which has the power to affect the latter. In this paper I will explain Socrates’ arguments on why the self is the soul and I will comment on what it means to cultivate it.
In this article which written by Plato, who is one of the ancient Greek philosophers, wrote and he was a student of Socrates. Plato illustrates Socrates arguments with people in society in part of his book. Socrates discusses with Hippothales near the wall outside of the wrestling school and from the beginning they argued about Lysis and at that time Socrates realized that Hippothales in love and he wants to determine Lysis view of love. God gives ability and strength to Socrates in determining people, who are in love or not. With the Lysis, Socrates has a deep discussion about love and friendships, and how to deal with those people that you are in love with.
This is a good argument, but it is not that good. Everyone who has at least one friend and one enemy is also a friend and enemy to somebody else. As Socrates meant, if we all do good to our friends and do evil to our enemies, that means we probably accidentally turning
The second form where Socrates broke down that was not justice, would be in the conversation with Cephalus and now Thrasymachus who is a sophist, discussing if Justice is to benefit ones friends and to harm ones enemies. Socrates gives an example of making a musician to make people unmusical, using a horseman use horsemanship to make someone unhorse manlike and he finishes it by comparing justice using justice to unjust people. This example proves that you can’t make people become unjust. At the end of this, Socrates proves that justice is not to benefit ones friend and harm their enemies.
Within Plato’s Republic the ideal of Justice is greatly Debated, Socrates main conversationalist being Thrasymachus. In simplest terms Thrasymachus view on “justice” is that it is a “tool” for the most powerful. The powerful use “justice” in a way that allows them to keep power or gain power. Within Thrasymachus’ first argument he uses “justice” in the same regard as “laws”. Thrasymachus argues that a ruling group in all circumstances create laws that work with how they are operating as “a democracy sets down democratic laws; a tyranny, tyrannic laws” (Plato 338e).
PHIL-401A: Writing Assignment #2 In the second book of the The Republic by Plato, Socrates, ancient Greek philosopher and mentor of the author, attempts to define justice with the help of Adeimantus, and Glaucon. Socrates suggests beginning the expedition by first identifying justice within a city to then hopefully identify justice within a single individual. In order to effectively commence the search for justice within a city, however, the group must explore the birth of cities. The passage of concern is section 369b - 369d with Socrates and Adeimantus as the main interlocutors where Plato argues that cities are formed from need, more specifically basic needs.