New accusers say that Socrates corrupts the youth and does not believe in the gods of the State, and has new divinities of his own. To defend himself against these charges, Socrates asks Meletus some questions. As a result, Meletus is shown to be contradicting himself and making accusations that are absolutely absurd. To the question “Who are the improvers of the youth?” Meletus replies that they are all citizens, but not Socrates, arguing that he is only one who is corrupting them. At the same time, he recognizes that no one would intentionally make the people worse because he is obliged to live among them.
First, many of the dialogue's characters state that rhetoric is an art. Thus, Socrates proves through his questioning that one "…should fulfill only those desires which make a man better… and suppose this to be an art. "1 As Callicles agrees, rhetoric seems to be consistent with this definition of an art. However, no one is able to effectively oppose Socrates' point that "…one who is going to be a true rhetorician must first be a just man himself and conversant with the principles of justice…" Plato, p. 83 They are also unable to disprove that Athenian rhetoricians do not need knowledge in order to achieve their aims. In fact, most of the men admit that an art requires inquiry into and knowledge of a field, and that rhetoricians have no need for this in order to be effective.
The first reason Socrates gives for accepting his death sentence is the fact that Athens has provided him with education. (Crito page 15) Although Socrates thinks this is a just reason, Plato would disagree because Socrates could have become corrupted and bad without proper education. According to Plato, Socrates would have the traits of a philosopher king. Socrates loves the truth, hates the false, is moderate and courageous. (The Republic 485a-486b) Careful analysis of The Crito would prove that Socrates does have those qualities as seen from his determination to stay in prison,
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. In order to decide what makes an unjust action harmful, it is important to understand how one decides what is 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
Plato’s famous philosophical text, Apology, is the account of Socrates’ trial for attempting to corrupt the youth and challenging the popular belief in the Greek Gods. Socrates’ wisely stated during the trial that, “the unexamined life is not worth living for a human being” (Apology). His idea of the good life was a life in which one’s complete self seeks out the universal truths and if his ideas were applied to our modern society, they would still be largely applicable. Socrates’ use of the phase ‘the unexamined life’ could have multiple meanings and applications. The most direct interpretation this phase would be someone who does not seek life’s answers and the universal truths as he does.
Socrates by his words wanted to affect the jury and gain the mercy for not putting him to a death and change a penalty instead. However, Socrates asking for the mercy was not because he had no other choice, but to put impudence on the court decision. Socrates was able to win the case if he had practiced Sophistry, but he chosen to tell a truth instead of saying shameful things that other people say it during a trail to avoid a penalty. Moreover, Socrates prophesied that there will be others people to take his position after his death anyway. After all, it is not the particular person who created an issue, but the activity of Philosophy itself was
If this unison of ideals results from the manipulative education that Socrates says, it makes one consider: If you bring up children surrounded by utopian ideals will they live out an idealistic lifestyle or are humans inherently prone to acting unjust? If someone were to prove that humans don’t act inherently unjust it would aid the argument that in Socrates city the auxiliaries would have no situation where they would have to maintain control by potential harmful means, and thus no situation where they would be unjust. However, this wouldn’t be true because the aforementioned counterargument only speaks to one aspect of the auxiliary’s role. Even if the auxiliaries do not do harm to the producers they must do harm to invaders to keep the city from collapsing, which is still a contradiction to Plato’s definition of
Socrates was rejected by the Athenians and accused of being harmful to the city and wanted him dead more for the informal charges than the formal charges against him. Socrates argues that he has provided a great amount of wisdom to the city and forces them to think about his philosophy and wisdom. Socrates is like a gadfly because he continuously provokes the city with ideas and criticism. His criticism rises when he is trying to awaken the city of Athens when he believes that they are becoming lazy in regard to the truth. Gadflies also seek for their own interest which is what Socrates does when he is trying to make the city question their own knowledge and beliefs about the accusations that Socrates faces.
Eisele in his article ‘Must Virtue Be Taught?’ he states that indeed it can because even though the main theory is that virtue is knowledge and that it may be taught, there is no one to fully comprehend and define what virtue is and share the understanding of it with others. Eisle presents an insightful new theory that Socrates knows what virtue is and how to teach it because he is the best example of it. With virtue being equivalent to excellence, Eisle argues that Socrates ‘performs excellence in his incessant questioning and questing’ (Eisle, 1987: