No one knowingly does evil is the argument introduced by Socrates. Socrates believed that individuals just dedicated evil deeds out of ignorance. So when he fights that no man fails willingly, he's speaking to the notion that, had one possessed the right kind of knowledge going into a specific circumstance, they would without a doubt benefit the deed. This argument reasons that the individuals who do evil things do them involuntarily. That is, individuals would prefer essentially not to do evil things, yet do them without wanting to.
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.
His punishment was death, so he apologized as his defense and the court didn’t believe him, he was sentenced to death because of the way he thinks, misleading character, and indiscriminate in his actions. 26. Socrates believed that no harm can come to a good man, neither in life nor in death. What do you think he meant, and do you agree? Socrates meant when someone does something good, good things will happen to you but when you do something bad, bad things would happen.
Socrates views escaping his unjust punishment as wrongful due to his gratitude, consistency, and loyalty to the laws and order of the government. The reasoning behind Socrates’ friends trying to persuade him to escape are validated through their arguments. First, the friends are worried about the opinions of others for it could look like the friends did nothing to try and help Socrates in this situation. For instance, Crito states that it’s not only a disaster that he will lose an exceptional friend like Socrates, but that Crito will “appear to most people, who don’t know you and me well, not to care- since I could’ve saved you” (pg 105). Although Crito and the rest
In the “Crito”, Socrates argues to his friend that he should stay in prison and face the penalties the law had placed upon him despite being able to easily escape and leave Athens. He gives several reasons for this, including the idea that his agreement to Athens is the greatest responsibility he has. Socrates also believes that by doing anything against what has been ruled would be unjust, and thus would be a detriment to his soul. In his opinion, it is not worth living with a ruined soul. I disagree with his rationale and will argue in this essay that his reasons while plausible and appear to be valid at first glance, are actually more normative and not at all necessary.
Socrates uses reasoning and logic throughout his trial. I believe that Socrates is innocent because he defends himself truthfully with effect. He uses sound arguments and he is passionate about philosophy. Socrates did nothing to gain in life and did not want a high social standing. Socrates is fair and uses correct methods of arguments by uncovering the
Forcing them to think differently, to question things, pushing his strange ideas upon them. This was the considered to be the main reason for his trial, but in truth the assembly just wanted to rid society of Socrates, he was considered a threat for Athenes. Thanks to his ideals, the youths of Athens realised how Athenian democracy was lacking and how weak it was. Socrates’s words “ To start of the trial, Socrates went on to say that he will deal with one accusation at a time, and immediately he pointed out one of the accusations, “be careful not to be deceived by an accomplished speaker like me” (The Apology. Plato.
As a result of this trigger, Socrates would have unquestionably taken the decision to escape prison. Yet, Crito’s method fails because Socrates’ moral value exceeds any relation or bond that he held with anyone. He doesn’t believe that a minor dilemma or wrongdoing of the public should have an influence on his decision. Socrates’ actions are honest and align with the laws of Athens. Socrates’ relationship with the laws must be stronger than those family bonds because they’re more important and an individual should even give up their life for the country if it ever comes to
Stephen King and Socrates show a great deal of similarities in their writing. King and Socrates are intellectual thinkers and both authors prove this to be true. In “On Being Condemned To Death”, by Socrates, the author delivers the speech in the belief that the speech wasn’t delivered for a lack of ingenuity, but more so lack of impudence. Socrates believed that he would be disgracing himself if he lowered his standards to not deliver one last speech. There is an ample amount of evidence that suggests Socrates delivered his death speech in order to not outrun death, but to outrun wickedness, which was far more dangerous.
The Apology is the regretful acknowledgment of a failure to follow the norms, but the in the Five dialogue it is a record of the formal speech to the jury of Socrates brought in his personal justification at the trial written by Plato. The Apology is the third part which explains the life of the Socrates, who he is, and what he did to find the wisest person in the Athens. The first part of the five dialogue is the main speech by the counter-assessment, and finally, last words to the jury, both to those who voted for the death sentence. Socrates is the wise philosopher who was brought in the courtroom due to some violation as thought by the people and the Meletus. Meletus was the accuser who had claimed two things on him.
After reading the textbook and Plato’s writing influenced by Socrates, I realized that in the period of his life Socrates was indeed truly a threat to the Athens society, because he looked for answers that no one else bothered to find which challenged their culture. The Athens believed a certain way during their time period. Those who did not implement their system into their lives were considered a threat. So how exactly was Socrates a threat to the Athenian society? Well, my proof was given from the passage,
In my opinion, there are three types of people: 1. People who believe that Socrates was guilty and deserves the death penalty. 2. Who thought that Socrates was guilty, but there was no need to kill him. 3. People who support the Socrates ideas and believe that he was not guilty.
What Socrates tries to convey to Athenians in his speech “Apology” other than “an unexamined life is not worth living” is that one should never give up one’s own philosophy for any reason, even though the reason is death. Socrates wanted his followers to know that death should not be feared. Socrates knows he is going to die, and he still continues his beliefs in the trial anyway. Socrates wants his followers to stick to what they believe in. Socrates pretty much has all of Athens against him and yet he continues on and sends a strong message to his followers.
In addition to it , his last words were " But now it is the time to go away, I am to die and you to live. Which of us goes to a better thing is unclear to everyone except the God". This proves that Socrates believed in after life which is dependent on God. Although, Socrates believed that he was a messenger of God. The people blamed Socrates to have a neutral approach towards their Gods, so they decided to put the blame on him for all the misfortunes.
For instance, Socrates that the people who accused him considered him to be wiser because he always refuted things from other people. Furthermore, Socrates asserts that the people who become cognizant of truth are worth nothing. Mortality or Death There are some facts concerning human mortality according to Socrates in Plato’s Apology. According to Socrates, no one know if death might be the best of all good things that happen to human beings; despite their feat for it. He says that people fear death as if it is the evilest thing that can happen to a person during his entire life.
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.
Socrates lived a life of truth; following the laws yet getting people to think for themselves. Because of the downfall of Athens and the way he lived, Socrates faced major charges such as corrupting the youth, spewing nonsense and going against the gods; or was it being a complete atheist? Even his accuser wasn’t sure which one it was. Proving his case well, Socrates manages to get his accusers and the jury to agree with him, but the jury still decides he is guilty. Socrates was charged unjustly because his accusers were manipulated, his charges are no longer valid and his accuser could not even make up their mind as what to charge him with.
In Plato’s Apology, Socrates is put into trial because he is accused of corrupting the youth with his teachings that deviate from the established beliefs of the Greek society. Although he justifies that he is only doing what he believes is his duty, he reasons that even if he is given a death penalty, death is nothing to be feared. He raises multiple strong and effective arguments that explain to his audience that it is illogical to fear death. All of these arguments revolves around the central idea that death is not evil and that “no evil can happen to a good man, either in life or after death” (Apology, 41c). The first argument that Socrates presents during his trial is the idea that death is not the most important thing to worry about in
The term “apology comes from the Greek word apologia which means to defend. In this essay I would like to explain why I believe that The Apology by Plato should be classified as pity and fear, in regards to Greek tragedy. I believe that this is true because I can personally empathize with Socrates; this will be discussed later on in this essay. A tragic hero is considered to be an individual with an intellectual flaw or error, Socrates fits this description; Socrates failed to understand that he could not empathize with the jurors because they simply wanted him to acknowledge his prior offenses, while he only sought out telling the truth and not sullying his own moral code. Socrates should be considered a tragic hero because he had an intellectual error, not an ethical one.
Furthermore, the decision to stop Socrates’s “antics” seems to be a permanent way to solve a temporary problem. The court was under the impression that the death of Socrates would result in the conclusion of his teachings; however, Socrates became a martyr and his teachings became immortal. In conclusion, I believe the government officials wanted some sort of remorse from Socrates because he challenged their authority, exposed their lack of knowledge and ultimately embarrassed them. They all felt threated and inferior due to his more impactful method of teaching. Had Socrates been willing to be silent and not spoken up, “his perpetual discussions, that unsettled everybody’s mind in this time of danger to the state, the jury would have undoubtedly have let him go,”