In Apology, Socrates faces possible execution as he stands trial in front of his fellow Athenian men. This jury of men must decide whether Socrates has acted impiously against the gods and if he has corrupted the youth of Athens. Socrates claims in his defense that he wants to live a private life, away from public affairs and teachings in Athens. He instead wants to focus on self-examination and learning truths from those in Athens through inquiry. Socrates argues that "a [man] who really fights for justice must lead a private, not a public, life if [he] is to survive for even a short time" (32a). He claims that this is how he has been able to live a long life in Athens and that he never meant any harm to the state. Socrates believes that for …show more content…
It is challenging to lead a private life while truly fighting for justice. A man can fight for justice through examining the greatest issues in human nature that Socrates found essential to the private life. However, this knowledge can have the biggest effect when brought into the public life such as through teachings. These two things can then combine to reflect how the state should be changed. Socrates sometimes crossed this line himself, even if unknowingly. Through becoming a teacher of the young men who followed him in Athens, Socrates effectively began to enter the public life. He was able to influence others through sharing his conclusions of justice, self-examination, and piety, and by asking relentless questions. Socrates effectively showed that an individual can live a private and a public life, even if Socrates was not directly involved in the policy-making in Athens. An individual can combine these two aspects of life in a productive way allowing her/him to live a full existence. These individuals can become teachers, politicians, and activists who use their focus on justice and piety in their private lives to advocate and create laws that promote true justice for the rest of the
Consequently, the citizens then looked towards the higher authority in Socrates’ persecution rather than Socrates’ himself due to the pure exaggeration of the case by Meletus. This exploitation leads to a corruption within the Athenian society that Socrates is trying to prevent. He believes that there is a misunderstanding in terms of languages, and a has a strong mistrust towards the government which ultimately allows him to advocate for sameness with the people. Plato’s approach to justifying Socrates’
Socrates compares the relationship between a citizen and a city to that of a child and a parent. Athens has nurtured Socrates in body and mind, given him an ideal environment to raise his own children in, to give him a platform to exhort people to be virtuous (Crito, 51a). As any child benefits from the protections and provisions of a parent, he must also obey the parent when it requires something of him. So, Socrates considers it his civic duty to obey Athens wishes since he has benefited from his citizenship. Socrates reaches a conclusion that defies a common-sense understanding of
Anish Yonjan Philosophy 1301-73426 Prof. Marcos Arandia Feb. 19, 2017 Explain and evaluate Socrates' claim in the Apology that "the unexamined life is not worth living for a human being," and briefly analyze and discuss the particular method he uses to discover the truth (i.e., dialectics or the Socratic Method), using at least two examples from Plato's Euthyphro and/or Apology. Do you agree that a human being cannot live a fully satisfying life if he or she remains ignorant, like the slavish prisoners in Plato's cave? Why or why not? In the Plato’s Apology, Socrates claims that the “unexamined life is not worth living for a human being”.
Socrates believed that our lives are based on conscious decisions, which were guided from our rational principles. His work shows that knowledge, is virtue, good, and truly beneficial while ignorance, is bad, which could lead to an evil action, and be truly harmful. I can connect this lesson with MLK’s speeches where he attempted to talk to society to allow them to realize that inequality of races was ignorant and harmful. MLK utilized his knowledge and faith in God, to allow the public to consider his words in reaching a society where men and women of all races lived in a peaceful, desegregated, non-violent society. Just like Socrates would question every aspect of life, so did MLK, by questioning the laws that were unjust at the time.
He is given the opportunity to choose an escape, and live his life never being able to return back to Athens. He completely opposes the idea and decides to live out the consequences of his trial, ultimately dying. Socrates made it his mission to live a virtuous life, which he did, right to his death. To life a virtuous life it would have gone against his own belief if he did escape his conviction, making this aspect very important in his philosophy. “To do so is right, and one must not give way or retreat or leave one’s post, but both in war and in courts and everywhere else, one must obey the commands of one’s city and country, or persuade as the nature of justice.
Political activists and philosophers alike have a challenging task of determining the conditions under which citizens are morally entitled to go against the law. Socrates and Martin Luther King, Jr. had different opinions on the obligation of the citizens in a society to obey the law. Although they were willing to accept the legal punishment, King believed that there are clear and definable circumstances where it would be appropriate, and sometimes mandatory, to purposely disobey unjust laws. Socrates did not. Socrates obeyed what he considered to be an unjust verdict because he believed that it was his obligation, as a citizen of Athens, to persuade or obey its Laws, no matter how dire the consequences.
“Socrates: An Atypical Hero of Greece” In Plato’s The Apology, Socrates defended himself while on trial against the old and new accusers in part by relating himself to other ancient Greek heroes. His most daring comparison is to the greatest hero of the ancient Greek civilization: Achilles. The purpose of Socrates’ defense speech was to attempt to persuade the jury that the social order of Greek society needed to transfer from an honor culture to a civilization that prioritized justice overall. By comparing and contrasting attributes of himself to Achilles, Socrates attempted to justify his claim that he was a hero like Achilles because they were both willing to sacrifice their lives for what they believed was right for the common good of others.
His personal defense is described in works two of his students: Xenophon and Plato. Both of them wrote papers called Apology, which is the Greek word for “defense”. In this essay I used Apology by Plato as the main resource, since it contents a more full account of the trial of Socrates and his words. Despite the fact that the philosopher attempted to defend himself and explain the reasons for saying and doing the things he did, it did not do any good for his justification. On the contrary, Socrates’ words seemed to make the jury harden their hearts and condemn him.
Socrates was a greek philosopher who found himself in trouble with his fellow citizens and court for standing his grounds on his new found beliefs from his studies about philosophical virtue, justice, and truth. In “Apology” written by Plato, Socrates defended himself in trial, not with the goal of escaping the death sentence, but with the goal of doing the right thing and standing for his beliefs. With this mindset, Socrates had no intention of kissing up to the Athenians to save his life. Many will argue that Socrates’ speech was not very effective because he did not fight for his life, he just accepted the death sentence that he was punished with. In his speech he said, “But now it’s time to leave, time for me to die and for you to live.”
Socrates believes that justice benefits the just, but also benefits the city (other people) too. He is faced with a seemingly simple choice, escape Athens or remain in prison and be sentenced to death. Socrates’ central argument against escaping his circumstances is twofold. First, Socrates argues that “one must never do wrong.” (49b)
In the Apology, Socrates states that the “unexamined life is not worth living” which for him was his decision on whether he wanted to live therefore discontinuing his passion for philosophy or be sentenced to death. For him to choose death over life simply because he wouldn’t be able to live out the rest of his life doing the one thing he so clearly values more than life, is something I don’t think I could’ve done easily. Yet for Socrates, he had embraced uncertainty and found comfort in that uncertainty to fully rely on his already discovered wisdom and curiosity. Going back to the statement itself, he went to the most extreme situation to make his point. Instead of simply stating that life would be less meaningful or less valuable, he goes straight and clear to the fact that to
Many philosophers throughout our history have had an influential impact on the fundamentals and ideals of modern society. Socrates’ life is mainly known and taught through the writing of one of his most well-known students, Plato. During this era, Socrates’ unorthodox political and religious views would lead to the most famous documentation of his philosophy accounted for by Plato in “Apology” (Boeree, 2009). Socrates would be placed on trial, where he repeatedly acknowledged his stance that standing up for what is right and wrong would out way the consequences he could potentially face. Ultimately, he would be sentenced to death for corrupting the morals of the youth of the city by drinking a mixture of poison hemlock (Biography.com Editors,
17b) Socrates himself did not documented any of his dialogues or thoughts. We only assess this philosopher by other’s records and observations. One of the most significant speeches of him was “The Apology” by Plato. This speech has that much significance not because there described the death penalty passed against Socrates, but because in that dialogue Socrates appears to us as enigmatic and ironic.
Socrates valued the ideas of others, and always took into account everyone’s opinion, an act that was rarely seen during his time. Seeing this, many of Socrates’ students and peers adapted his style to life, creating a revolutionary way to life that was unlike anyone at the time had ever
In Book IV of Plato’s Republic, Socrates and his peers come to the conclusion that a city is going to need people who have an understanding of what justice should be. Socrates at the end of Book IV can make the difference between individual, political, and social justice. He knows that individual and political justice is so much in common because they both weigh in heavy on truth, honor, and appetitive soul. That appetitive soul is an element that helps the secure the just community with love and support.