In Plato’s Apology, Socrates uses religious appeals, proof by contradiction WC and various examples to argue for his innocence in court. Socrates is forced to argue for the sake of his life to prove that he is not guilty. Socreates’ speech, however, he is not apologizing for anything instead, the word comes from the Greek word “apologia,” that translates to a speech made in defense. Socrates begins his argument by stating the reason he thinks he is being accused is because of his reputation with the citizens of Athens.
Within Book III, the question of how to choose their rulers is brought to the attention of both Socrates and our interlocutor – Glaucon. They discuss the best methods for this selection and what a good ruler should and should not be. This dialogue opens the discussion of finding a falsehood that can persuade even rulers and possibly create a better city, leading to the usage of the Myth of Metals – the Noble Lie. Glaucon at first immediately agrees with Socrates’ point that guardians must believe they will always have to do and discern what is good for the city and never try to do the opposite.
(Plato, Tredennick, & Tarrant, 2003, p81). Crito offered Socrates to finance his escape in order to take him into exile where he would be protected from harm. Socrates’ friend believes that it is the right thing to run any risks in order to save him, and he assures
Socrates claims that he did not consciously corrupt the youth of Athens, and he gives many reasons why he is not at fault for these actions. In his defense to the jury, he tells them that by looking at the facts, they will see Meletus is accusing him of something that is not true. The way Socrates defends himself is well-thought out and logical. He ask Meletus a serious of questions and Meletus answers, Socrates then moves on to the next question to support his claim.
This scenario, with both decisions resulting in unwanted consequences, illustrates what a dilemma is and will help in understanding the specific dilemma I plan to discuss for the remainder of this essay. The Euthyphro dilemma has plagued the minds of great thinkers since the time of antiquity. This dilemma finds its origins in Plato’s dialogue Euthyphro which features Socrates and Euthyphro, his son as well as an ancient religious prophet of Athens, engaging in discourse that touches on the relationship between the gods and piety. Socrates, while engaging in civil discourse with the prophet, presses him four different times in order to bring forth a
One of the important definitions given was that given by Thrasymachus: he defines justice as the advantage of the stronger. “Now listen, I say that the just is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger. Well why don’t you praise me? But you won’t be willing”. He said his definition and was sure that it was right.
Both King and Gandhi cautioned that violence breeds more violence, that nonviolent means must be enforced to successfully accomplish their goals. King illustrates this best when he said: “Never could I advocate nonviolence in this country and not advocate nonviolence for the whole world. That’s my philosophy, I don’t believe in the death and killing on either side, no matter who’s heading it up. Nonviolence is my stand and I’ll die for that stand.” (Nojeim 207).
Additionally, Socrates continues to use the Socratic Method to examine the second accusation against him from Meletus, impiety. Socrates asks Meletus many questions regarding his accusation and Meletus eventually admits to the jury that Socrates believes in spirits and that spirits are gods or their children (27d). Socrates then states that there is no way that the jury would believe that a
This shows his tolerance for the suitors in order to keep his identity secretive. Although Odysseus was angered by the suitors his patience is tested by having to keep his composure and not kill these men in that moment. “O Father Zeus, if over land and water, after adversity, you willed to bring me home” (20.l.101) Instead of Odysseus taking matters into his own hands like he use to he learns to wait for a signal from the gods before he acts upon his plans. This revealed great change in Odysseus, and demonstrated his humble ways after such his journey back home. Overall, In Homer's The Odyssey, Odysseus’s journey has purpose, meaning, and brings a hero growth to his character.
In the Crito, Socrates and his long-time friend Crito discuss the complex question of whether or not Socrates should escape from jail due to his impending execution. Their argument questions whether citizens should always follow the law. They originally have different opinions and reasoning, but Crito eventually comes to agree with Socrates. Both Socrates and Crito express many valid points on the subject.
Position Paper #1: For Socrates’ Argument of Tacit Agreement In The Crito Socrates uses two metaphors to justify his reason for staying in jail and dying instead of leaving Athens and starting a new life in another town. The metaphor he uses that most justifies his reasoning is the argument of tacit agreement, that he agreed to the laws and regulation of Athens when he decided to live there. Socrates knew that living in he agreed to follow all rules that the city had.
Crito was afraid because his friend Socrates was willing to be executed; Crito made haste to explain that he can and must help Socrates to escape. All it would take is a few appropriate bribes to the guards and anyone who was willing to provide meaningful information, which would not be at all difficult to take care of. Crito further explains that if Socrates does not escape, no one would believe that he had willingly faced execution. Instead, Crito would be accused of not helping Socrates, He would rather be accused of being materialistic. Socrates suggests that one should only be cautious of the opinions of sensible people who will see things exactly as they turned out.