the Republic, Socrates argues that justice ought to be valued both for its own sake and for the sake of its consequences (358a1–3). His interlocutors Glaucon and Adeimantus have reported a number of arguments to the effect that the value of justice lies purely in the rewards and reputation that are the usual consequence of being seen to be just, and have asked Socrates to say what justice is and to show that justice is always intrinsically better than is acting contrary to justice when doing so would win you more non-moral goods. Glaucon presents these arguments as renewing Thrasymachus’ Book 1 position that justice is “another’s good” (358b–c, cf. 343c), which Thrasymachus had associated with the claim that the rulers in any constitution frame
Later in his argument, he asks the jury to excuse his ordinary language and rather to “consecrate your attention on whether what I say is just or not, for the excellence of a judge lies in this, as that of a speaker lies in telling the truth” (Plato 18a). By demonstrating that he does not speak with eloquence or enticement, Socrates proves to speak with honesty and plainness, which shows that he considers truth a virtue. Here he also reveals why it is so important for both a speaker and a judge to focus on the truth; in a court, both are under an oath: the speaker to be honest, and the judge to be just based on the speaker’s actions. By asking the jury to ignore the eloquence of words he uses and focus on the truthfulness of what he is saying, Socrates shows that he is confident that the facts and correctness of his argument will lead the jury to see his innocence and the slander of his accuser’s claim. However, the jury do not seem to adhere to Socrates’ plea and gives its verdict of guilty, and Meletus asks for the death penalty.
Adapting To Challenging Environments In A Long Walk To Water by Linda Sue Park, “Time Trip: Sudan’s Civil War” by Scholastic, Salva’s Bio” and “Water for South Sudan: Salva’s Story”, many events that happened in Sudan and how people adapted to their challenging environment are shown. The characters I will focus on are Salva, Nya, Salva’s Uncle, the Lost Boy’s, and Sudanese people in general. The main point I will focus on is that individuals adapt in challenging environments by taking small steps to complete a big task, moving from one place to another, and taking advantage of the current environment and it’s resources. The author uses several literary devices, including a plot, characters, images, language, and other things to show how Salva,
In this paper I will argue that Socrates’s argument at 50a-b of the Crito would be not harming his fellow citizens by breaking the laws. Based on the readings from Plato’s The Five Dialogues, I will go over the reasoning of Socrates’ view on the good life. I will then discuss the three arguments Crito has for Socrates regarding his evasion of the death sentence including the selfish, the practicality, and the moral arguments. I will deliberate an objection to the argument and reply to the objections made in the paper and conclude with final thoughts. Socrates argues in the Crito that he should not escape or disobey the law because it is unethical.
Plato’s dialogues Gorgias and Phaedrus both consider the idea of rhetoric. Rhetoric being the art or skill of getting something from the masses or individuals, and often used in getting away with a crime. The type of rhetoric being argued about in the Gorgias dialogue is public rhetoric, what exactly rhetoric is, whether it is an art or not, and how it is best used so as to promote the highest good. In the Phaedrus dialogue private rhetoric is being discussed over the issue of love. This paper will examine how eros is central to both the Gorgias and Phaedrus dialogues.
Comparing Socrates words in the Republic for the philosopher to rule to the words of the Apology where philosophy is viewed as something that is punishable by death, this is where the defense or importance of philosophy is realized. For if the philosophers were the ones to rule, nobody would question whether or not what they were doing was right or wrong because the philosopher-kings make the rules through wisdom and knowledge. Plato wants to paint a portrait of the philosopher as not only something the city should want to have, but also as someone who would be fit to rule above all others. This contrasts, again, to the points made by the jurors to Socrates in the Apology for they saw Socrates as someone who brings the city
He uses the example of ruling a city, where a government would change the rules and laws to best suit them, and as the rules are followed by those who act justly, the just would be acting in the favour of the stronger. Socrates objects to this and claims that humans will make mistake, as that is part of being human, and may
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.”
In the tale Gorgias by Plato, Socrates debates with four colleagues on what is rhetoric. To be able to answer if rhetoric is based on nature or convention you must first ask the question, what is rhetoric? Rhetoric stated by Socrates is the skill of making speeches (448d). Gorgias states that rhetoricians have the power of persuasions (452e). Rhetoric is having the power to persuade people in changing their opinion threw the power of speeches.
I would argue that Socrates is influencing the audience and the people who will read his case to become more philosophical. He has a purpose
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)
On his way to his death some might say he should escape since his trial is unjust. Some might argue, like Socrates, that it isn't right for him to escape and go against his word. His friend Crito is trying to argue the reasons why Socrates is in the right for escaping, while Socrates is arguing the opposite, why his morals will not allow him to do so. Socrates argues many things and makes very firm arguments.
The various ideologies of love mentioned by speakers in Plato’s Symposium portrayed the social and cultural aspect of ancient Greece. In the text, there were series of speeches given by Phaedrus, Pausanias, Eryximachus, Aristophanes, Socrates, and Agathon about the idea of love, specifically the effect and nature of Eros. Within the speakers, Agathon’s speech was exceptional in that his speech shifted the focus of the audience from effect of Eros on people, to the nature and gifts from the Eros. Despite Agathon’s exceptional remarks about Eros, Socrates challenged Agathon’s characterization of Eros through utilization of Socratic Method.
Plato's Republic is centered on one simple question: is it always better to be just than unjust? This is something that Socrates addresses both in terms of political communities and the individual person. Plato argues that being just is advantageous to the individual independent of any societal benefits that the individual may incur in virtue of being just. I feel as if Plato’s argument is problematic. There are not enough compelling reasons to make this argument.
