In Plato’s Five Dialogues, the protagonist is a philosopher named Socrates. Socrates is a very curious man, who spent his time asking the citizens of Athens questions that turned into discussions, hoping to answer ethical dilemmas. These debates would often end with Socrates embarrassing his opponent by pointing out the flaws in their argument, without actually stating his own beliefs. This practice later became known as the Socratic Method. Some people respected Socrates, such as the youth who followed him around in their free will, while others criticized him, such as those who he publicly humiliated.
The ‘Apology’ is a form of dialectic philosophy. It illustrates the charges brought upon Socrates and the self-defense he demonstrates during the trial. Socrates is accused of ‘corruption of the youth’ and ‘impiety’. Socrates is found guilty of having faith in the wrong Gods and Meletus accuses him of not acknowledging the sun and moon as gods but as masses of stone. Socrates is accused of studying things in heaven and below the earth.
However, Socrates is not satisfied with such definition and responses to Euthyphro that many of conflicts exist among the gods and what is pleasant to one god might be unpleasant to another. Consequently, Euthyphro says that goodness is something pleasant to all gods. So at end of dialogue, Socrates have not agreed with Euthyphro and says “So I think you’ve just been playing games with me, Euthyphro. I asked you to tell me what holiness really is, and it seems you’ve sneakily refused to tell me” (Plato, 1984, p.49). Thereby, the dialogue leaves readers with unanswered question “Does goodness exist?” and if it exists what goodness is?
In this paper I will examine why Socrates did not attempt to appease the jury in his Apology. Socrates is put on trial for corrupting the youth and believing in gods other than the gods of the city. I believe he chose not to appease the jury for three reasons: he is a man of pride, he does not fear death and additionally finds it shameful to fear death. Socrates is a man of pride. He has passion for his beliefs and values, and would rather die than give them up.
1. Socratic Ignorance is where a person indirectly admits that don’t know the answer to what they don’t know. In other words they know they that they don’t know everything. Euthyphro is a good example of socratic ignorance because Euthyphro claims that he knows what is holy and what is not considering that he is charging his father for the crime of killing a murderer. So Socrates asks him to define what is holy and what is not.
Even though majority of The Apology is literally a speech narrated by Socrates, we can guess that Plato was intrigued by the story enough to twist it in a way that would highlight Socrates, and the picture was thoroughly diverse from that of Aristophanes. Between the two works there is without A doubt great controversy and moments attempting to prove the character and moral integrity of Socrates. In The Clouds Socrates is identified as the most hated type of sophist; he
He essentially repeats his previous statement that piety is learning how to please the gods and impiety is that which ruins and destroys the gods (36). This statement, much like the first, is questioned and refuted due to the fact that all of the gods do not agree on what is that which is pious, and that which is not. The true definition of piety remains unanswered to Socrates as Euthyphro leaves him with no concreteness, however, their dialogue does manage to give him a greater understanding of piety even with uncertainty of what it actually
Through many of Plato’s works, such as the Republic, the Gorgias, and the Apology, the person that Socrates was and his personality shine through in his dialogue. Socrates was a man who asked many questions and always pushed not only his students but the whole city of Athens to look for more than just physical things. Many people claim, that Socrates went about teaching in the wrong way and that he is an arrogant fool and not an extremely wise person. However, I disagree with this claim. I believe that Socrates was a man who looked beyond the physical world and strived to gain as much knowledge as he could through asking questions and continuing to learn from others and in turn teach others, thus making him wise and striving to live the best life.
In spite of the fact that it is illogical to state that Socrates simply ruins the youth. This concludes every other person helps the adolescent. Who might deliberately corrupt the youth? In the course of this examination Socrates presents three arguments apparently leading to the conclusions that the one improves and the many corrupt, that he either does not corrupt the youth at all or, is he does, he does not do so deliberately, and that he believes in the existence of divinities and hence is not altogether an atheist. (Calef, Scott W. "Does Apology 24C-25C Contain an Argument That Socrates Is Innocent?"
Socrates’ first premise is that when Socrates meets poets, politicians, artists and artisans, they claim to be wise and because of that claim they are not wise. Socrates’ second premise is that Sophists go around teaching how to make arguments only to win and not to prove anything one way or another, hence making them not
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
Personal the most logical reasoning to the late sentencing would be the personal vendettas that Meteus and Antus held against Socrates. Meteus was a deeply religious man, and apparently was not intelligent. Writings claims that Socrates embarrassed meteus by out witting him in public. Antuts was a wealthy manufactuor who’s son wanted to have Socrates as a sophist. However, Antus adamantly said no and his son became enraged.