Reasoning is all the positive and opposing arguments that support or critique the thesis by using logic. Socrates was accused and charged with being a corruptor of the youth and denying the gods of the city but introducing other divinities. Socrates defends his case by using reasoning and logic. Socrates said that if every Athenian improved the youth while only he corrupts them, then is influence should not have a greater effect than all the Athenians. Socrates didn’t corrupt the youth.
Plato, in his writing, uses powerful examples that work to communicate his ideas in a less extreme manner. Despite that, this does not work to explain why Plato feels so strongly about equality in the just city. In working through this argument, there are many difficulties in connecting it to the question of justice. It is hard to say, initially,
When it comes to justice, Polemarchus believes that justice is “…helping friends and harming enemies.”. Socrates questions this point of view because according to Polemarchus’ view point, only the people who are close to him and in his circle of friends would be worthy of any kind of Justice. Polemarchus is wrong in this viewpoint because if only the people that you know who are of your similar social status and you interact with on a day to day basis are considered friends, what of those that you do not know? Or what of those who are not of your social status, that you do not interact with? Socrates questions this by asking, “Do you mean by friends those who seem to be good to an individual, or those who are, even if they don't seem to be, and similar with enemies?”.
so that people or citizens are able to know how to live beautifully, well, justly according to their definitions. Therefore, his purpose is to have information about self of each creature. To achieve the aim, Socrates firstly tried to destroy or to decay incorrect views that are believed to be correct. For instance, he does not think that the crowd can detect what is well, just etc. Only those ones who base their ideas upon reason and rationale can determine what is well, just, etc.
I will provide a brief opening statement. 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
Even though, the good life caused Socrates an early death. Also, breaking the law may result in harming others and according to Socrates harming others can harm the soul. By harming others one is being unjust and unjust deeds harm the soul. So what is the point of breaking the law if I will be hurt in the end? Furthermore, Socrates would never rationalize breaking the law because it would be violating an agreement made between the citizen and the state.
Justice in opposite points of view Plato tries to describe what justice is in reality by the different characters ' points of view in his book “The Republic”. In “The Republic” the characters, such Socrates, Thrasymachus, Glaucon, Cephalus, Adeimantus, Polemarchus give their opinion about justice. The people in the Just city are divided into 3 groups: gold, silver and bronze that means ruler part, guardian part and labor part of citizens. Thrasymachus says that justice is the advantage of the stronger, but Socrates argues that justice is being honest and do own role in society. Firstly, the dialogue between Socrates and Thrasymachus starts with the question that justice is the interest of the stronger or not.
Book One of Plato’s The Republic includes an argument between two individuals, Socrates and Thrasymachus, where they attempt to define the concept of justice. Thrasymachus states that justice is what is advantageous for the stronger, however, Socrates challenges this belief through pointing out holes in Thrasymachus’s argument. In this paper, I will reconstruct the steps of this argument in order to evaluate the claims of both Socrates and Thrasymachus and demonstrate that, Socrates had a stronger claim than Thrasymachus in regards to justice because of the flawed assumptions Thrasymachus makes in relation to the word “advantageous,” how rulers behave, and how government is implemented. His assumptions not only lack external evidence, but Thrasymachus is unable to be critical of the fact that his assumptions just mimic general understandings of the word “advantageous,” without deeper thought of what the word truly means in this context. The argument begins when Thrasymachus first states that, “justice is nothing other than what is advantageous for the stronger” (pg.
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? Or to just simply not be wise enough to ask the questions that trouble him? Is the only way for him to be happy by being a fool? Unlike the fool, Socrates knows both parties because of his philosophical ideals. He knows why he is dissatisfied and why the fool is satisfied.
However, the good will may depend on outside factors to bring about good in a person. Thus, I argue if Kant’s theory were true, it would be very difficult to be a good person as utilitarianism do not allow for acts that go beyond duty. Kant’s argument suggests that good will is the only thing good without qualification. First, Kant begins to distinguish between things that are good without qualification and things that are good only under certain qualified conditions. For example, gifts of nature such as understanding, wit, and judgement, or gifts of fortune such as power, riches,
He says, “I do not corrupt, or if I do corrupt, I do it involuntarily, so in both cases what you say is false” (26a, p. 75). He continues by saying that if he corrupts involuntarily, “the law is to bring in those in need of punishment, not learning” (26a, p. 75). This further points out Socrates’s innocence. He believes that he would need to learn of his wrongdoings rather than be punished because he doesn’t see anything wrong with his actions. In his innocent eyes, all he did was go out to talk and question the Athenian people.
Adeimantus rejoined and claimed that no one wanted to be justice for its own sake, but for the reward they could get from it to have better lives. As Socrates had chosen from Glaucon’s classes, “second class of good, such as knowledge, sight, health, which are desirable not only in themselves, but also for their results”. Adeimantus forced Socrates to prove why he chose that. Socrates proved with example about a State, the Republic. To create the Republic people worked together.
They stat that “after having considered moderation, courage, and prudence, this is what’s left over in the city, justice” (Bloom 111; 433c). Also through the conversation he had with Glaucon and Adeimantus, they both accept Socrates’ assumptions about the nature and aids of justice at the end of Book IV. Which this turn meant they never responded to the argument and ignore they cue to refute Socrates’ claim on justice which can cause the argument to be misleading because of their absence in questioning his argument. Their failure to questions Socrates’ assumption may have contain some drawback to their search of such justice. Socrates’ attempts to define the word justice it meet with a roadblock because they it is not possible to obtain through such needs.
Socrates states at the trail that he doesn 't have any true knowledge and he believed that in order to have any true knowledge one must be able to produce a single, clear definition of a subject without any exclusions to the rule, something that he was never able believed that he couldn 't do .Rather than use he own opinions to teach his pupils what to think , Socrates used “systematic questioning” (b136p813) to help clear their own minds and reach their own conclusions just by thinking. A skill that they could carry forward, into their lives as Athenian citizens. With this in mind it is nearly impossible for the Athenians government to find Socrates guilty of wrong
After analyzing Critos arguments and Socrates response, Socrates decision to stay was the right choice because of his knowledge about what is just and his loyalty to the Laws. Though Crito’s attempt at persuading Socrates to escape to another country was solid, it would not have had a beneficial outcome for Socrates life. It would lead to many negative implications like Socrates being a bad influence for children and youth. Therefore, he would not be able to fulfill Gods command to teach. Overall, the points Socrates makes within his response to Crito shows that escaping Athens is not what would be beneficial for him, his sons and the Laws.