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.
Glaucon believes humans are restrained by consequences and human’s happiness comes from being an unjust person rather than Socrates’ belief of being just truly leads to happiness. The passage written by Plato goes in to great detail of how Socrates defends his position and how Glaucon defends his position as well but then leaves the reader to formulate his own opinion. With both Socrates’ position and as well as Glaucons, it is clear to see that Glaucon has the more rational reasoning within the debate of who’s happier, the just or unjust person. In Plato’s writing, The Republic, Glaucon challenge Socrates to describe justice and to give reasoning to why acting justly should be believed to be in anyone's self-interest. Glaucon claims that all goods can be distributed into three classes:
Socrates is portrayed as a religious man who for the better part of his life has been obeying the divine command. The question that is asked however is whether one is under an obligation to obey the laws even when they are not just. According to his Crito and his friends, Socrates would have been justified to break the laws and run out of prison because justice had been denied to him, to begin with. However, Socrates is accustomed to doing what he believes is right. He cannot forsake this course to save his life.
What if every known thing in the world turned out to be misguided? What if people within the world learned ways of life and adapted to environments only to find out that it was all a lie? In "The Allegory of the Cave" from Plato's "The Republic", the same questions were considered and analyzed by Socrates, the speaker of the story. The Philosopher Socrates explicates his allegory of great curiosity to Glaucon, a man of whom Socrates shares his wealth of wisdom with. Socrates' purpose in expressing the allegory is to show how the human race may not always see the truth but rather convince themselves that what they see is the truth.
The question of whether Socrates was the only real philosopher comes from one interpretation of Plato’s writings, namely Apology. Written after Socrates was tainted with the sophistic brush, scorned by society and brought to trial. In this interpretation, it is believed that Plato derided all sophists and recognised Socrates as the only real philosopher among his contemporaries, and knew of no other who could be considered as such. I however, argue that Plato never regarded, nor defended, Socrates as the only real philosopher. Rather, he presented Socrates as one of the many ‘real’ philosophers.
Socrates sees himself as wiser than other men including the politicians, craftsmen, and poets because he did not go around thinking he knew what he did not know. As a result of this, his character reflected someone who saw himself as superior to others and instead of feeding that ego, he could have been a joined politics and have an influence on the Athenian democracy. If he had done this, people like Meletus and his later accusers would have taken his criticism in a positive way. Socrates has the right to criticize the democracy of Athens because, in his perspective, verdicts are passed in the court by jurors with respect to whoever seems good to him. The democracy of the people was biased because, even if a person was wrong in court, he would not receive the right punishment her deserved because of his relations with the jurors.
Thrasymachus believes justice is the good of another-- doing what is of advantage to the more powerful. This is a revisionary definition because this is a perversion of the word justice as it is typically associated with morality by his peers. Justice is not defined by laws the more powerful have written, but is defined by what is advantageous to the more powerful as in the example of the eulogy therefore excluding obedience as Socrates assumes he means. He offers an implicit conception of where everyone must work towards the good of the most powerful. By defining this as justice there is no need for exercising self advancing interests in order to act just.
Rhetoric is having the power to persuade people in changing their opinion threw the power of speeches. Socrates states that persuasion is produced from opinion, not knowledge (454b-455a). Socrates states that rhetoric is based off opinion because if persuasion was knowledge it would be true, but not all persuasion is true. If persuasion was the same thing as knowledge it would never be false because you
On that note, Socrates believes that virtue is a general form (eidos), meaning that there is a pattern (Plato 50). Although the two characters are both from esteemed backgrounds, unlike Meno, Socrates claims to know nothing and therefore is aware of his own ignorance. However, Socrates does know that virtue is like a recollection (anamnesis) of knowledge (Plato 49). In other words, virtue cannot come from instructions (as we learned that there are no teachers of virtue), but from an innate understanding of the soul (Plato
Knowledge is both good and clever, and per Socrates, because both knowledge and justice are the same in one regard they are the same in being both good and clever. Though Socrates and Thrasymachus agree to this it can be stated that the division fallacy and the no-sequitur fallacies were made. By closing that what’s right about one part of Socrates argument, it must be applied to all that are of the like. Moreover, though its agreed that both the premises are true, the conclusion does not necessarily follow. Applying these formal logic, it is affirmed that Socrates’ argument for justice being wiser than injustice is
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
The Pre-Socratics used rational thought to explain their world; if nature causes it, nature can cure it. They tried to explain natural occurrences without the use of religion. The Sophists suspected that Absolute Truths and Ideals are relative to the individual; they are not set by a higher power, but we decide them ourselves with our own human ideas and experiences. This idea seems to put a lot of power in our hands. Socrates, the father of philosophy, used the Socratic Method to teach; he asked questions, allowing students to use their own prior knowledge to form answers, looking within to find the truth.
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.
The first concept that I noticed shared by Russell and Socrates was the concept that one had to remove themselves before serious philosophical contemplation could take place. In Russell 's case, he refers to the "Self" and the "Not-Self". With Socrates, as seen in the Apology, confronting his accuser about the corruption of youth, his accuser is silent because he had not given the matter any thought. Socrates awareness of his own ignorance frees him from what Russell would refer to as "Self". I mention this because it serves as a common theme even as both philosophers differ in their messages.
In general, I do agree with your analysis, Socrates intentions were to leave a mark in society. In other words, to have individuals then and now take some time to “think” and seek greater knowledge. In my opinion, I can have concluded that his argument in trial serve not just as a plead to prove his innocence but as an invitation to follow his philosophy. Plato’s documentation of that event proves that Socrates did not die in vain that some was hearing his words and has cause conscience of themselves. Additionally, it can be seen that Socrates came to the wisdom of knowing himself and defending that knowledge to the