Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Plato's apology essay
Plato's apology essay
Lessons from the apology of plato
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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
Sydney Leopard Philosophy 105 3-5-2018 What is pious and impious and who, on the off chance that anybody, is to decide equity? In The Trial and Death of Socrates, Plato relates the dialog amongst Crito and Socrates in his correctional facility cell. Crito is doing what he supposes is just and intends to convince Socrates to escape execution. Socrates, however, doesn 't rush to take Crito 's offer.
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.
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.”
Introduction The Apology was written by Plato, and relates Socrates’ defense at his trial on charges of corrupting the youth and impiety. Socrates argues that he is innocent of both charges. Plato reports the contents of three speeches delivered by Socrates in his own protection in court which has been arranged over him by the Athenian democrats and has terminated in the death sentence to the great philosopher. The word "apology" in a literal translation means "justification". Plato's purpose when writing "Apology" was to acquit posthumously Socrates from false accusation.
“Plato Apology” relates the trial of Socrates (469-399) B.C.E known as the father of Western Philosophy. Socrates, a son of sculpture and the midwife had a queer with most Athenians due to his point of view on values and beliefs. Charged with impiety and corrupting the Youth, Socrates’ defends himself by persuading the jury of his innocence with tangible reasons which made his arguments effective.
Despite the title of this historical piece of work, this speech, made by Socrates at his trial, was anything but an apology. Plato, who wrote Apology, was a student of Socrates and this is his account of the trial. Even though he was present at the trial, the colloquy may have been adjusted by Plato to reflect what he thought Socrates should have said or what he thought Socrates meant to say. Plato was very fond of Socrates, therefore the way he may present him can be bias. Socrates attempted to persuade the men of Athens of his innocence by presenting himself as a good man and an authority of knowledge, as declared by the Delphic oracle.
Part A- Socrates In thinking of Socrates we must recognize that what we have is four secondhand sources depicting him. That of Plato, Xenophanes, Aristophanes, and Aristotle. All having radically different accounts on Socrates and his views. Out of all them we consider Plato’s to be the most possible account, even though we face a problem of different versions of Socrates.
Plato believes that his teacher, Socrates, was trialed because he was “evil” and needed to be killed from society. The “apology” Socrates presents himself as respected and mistreated due to the emotions of the Athenian
The trial and death of Socrates is a book with four dialogues all about the trail that leads to the eventual death of Socrates. The four dialogues are Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, and Phaedo. It will explain the reasoning that brought Socrates to trial in the first place and give us a glimpse into the physiological thought of this time, and in this paper will describe some of the differences today. The first of the four dialogues are Euthyphro.
Taylor Diebert 820074652 4 February 2018 Short Essay: Plato’s The Apology The Apology is a speech presented by Socrates in court in defense against accusations facing him, formal and informal. The Apology is an interpretation of what happened in the time of the trial and who Socrates was and what his duty was in life. In this essay, I will carefully explain section 30e-31b and Socrates analogy of a gadfly and how it relates to the text as a whole. I will explain Socrates role in the city and why if he is killed, the city will be doing themselves a greater injustice than they will be doing to Socrates by killing him. I will also be explaining how the Socratic Method is used by Socrates in the trial to help against his accusations how he could
PERSONAL STATEMENT Arjun Balasubramanian | UM-ID: 06824428 Computer Science & Engineering M.S. Fall 2018 Growing up in India has been an enriching experience; my interactions with people from different cultures and ideologies have broadened my perspective and allowed me to view things in different ways. Swami Chinmayananda Saraswati, the founder of my high school had once made a very powerful statement - “Youth are not useless, but they are used less.” This statement has been having a resonating impact on me since high school. During my senior year at NIT Trichy, I had conceptualized the idea of a “Youth Summit” that would allow young engineers to discuss and ideate on progressive themes.
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.
I found the story of Socrates trial, on pages 43-46, to be incredible. I always knew that history was full of surprises and amazing events. However, I had no idea that Athens had such a robust debate environment at 399 B.C.E. It seems like Athens was dealing with the same kind of political corruption that we, in modern society, must face in our politics today. It really proves the saying, “history repeats itself.”
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.