Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
Notes on socrates
What are the views of Socrates on politics
Notes on socrates
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Notes on socrates
What are the views of Socrates on politics
Notes on socrates
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Notes on socrates
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
Euthyphro tries to explain him that he was doing the same as Zeus did to his father and therefore being pious. But Socrates argues that it is just an example and not an explanation. He tries again and says what gods like is pious and what they dislike is not. But Socrates points out the fallacy in that argument that one god might not agree with another to which he replies in his third attempt what all gods like is pious and what they all hate is impious. Here, in this example we can see that how he searches for a concrete and complete definition for being pious.
In Plato’s, The Republic, Book I, Socrates tries to prove to Thrasymachus “whether just people also live better and are happier than unjust ones” (352d). He argues that everything has a predisposed proficiency at a function, and that this functions are performed well by the peculiar virtue and badly by means of its vice (353a-353d) . The point of this paper is to present Socrates argument and evaluate it to the best of my ability. This argument can be categorized as an inductive generalization. Socrates states that the function of anything is what it alone can do or what it does best.
A: III. The Apology of Plato: what was Socrates saying? A comparison and contrast of the rhetorical strategy of Socrates in FS 11, Plato’s Apology to the rhetorical strategy of the speaker in the Athenian law court speech you read for your report. Find all you can that is unconventional and counter conventional in what Socrates says.
By escaping from prison, he would be breaking the laws of the city. Since the laws all together are seen as one, by breaking one law he would be breaking all the laws. In order for a law to be legitimate, the citizens of the city must follow the laws. If the law is broken, it is no longer a legitimate law. This is why Socrates
Not believing in Gods Socrates did not recognize the gods, which were generally accepted in Athens. As it is known, in the community of that time some traditions and regulations were formed, and if person did not compliance them, this person acts against society. The charge was formulated as follows: "Socrates breaks the law not recognizing the gods, which recognizes the city, but recognizing the believing in some new genius" (literally "new demon"). So if in Athens laws was also traditions, and tradition was to believe in generally accepted gods, not believing in gods Socrates was breaking the law.
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
New accusers say that Socrates corrupts the youth and does not believe in the gods of the State, and has new divinities of his own. To defend himself against these charges, Socrates asks Meletus some questions. As a result, Meletus is shown to be contradicting himself and making accusations that are absolutely absurd. To the question “Who are the improvers of the youth?” Meletus replies that they are all citizens, but not Socrates, arguing that he is only one who is corrupting them.
As opposed to Thrasymachus' initial beliefs, Socrates stands by the states with the right to exercise their powers. Within the dialogue, Socrates explains that Thrasymacus' viewpoint on justice is wrong through the idea of the art of ruling. He believes that the art of ruling does account for the wellbeing of those being ruled (Plato, 23). Through the example of a shepherd, Socrates explains that it is in the best interest of the ruler to rule in the greatest interest of the people (Ibid). Therefore, Socrates comes to the conclusion that art and government do provide for the weak, which are the subjects in this case.
The world we live in is filled with crime, evil, and injustice, but do people have the desire to do bad things knowing that they are bad, or do they do them thinking that they are good? In this essay, I examine Socrates argument, found in Plato’s Meno, that no one knowingly desires bad things. If Socrates were right, it would mean that it is impossible for someone to perform a bad action based on their desire for that bad thing. Instead, all bad desires result from the ignorance of the person performing the action in falsely believing that the action is good. Though Socrates presents a compelling argument, I argue that it is possible for someone to act badly, all the while knowing that what they desire is bad.
Socrates was a man with much influence, he was very intelligent and possesed great wisdom. Everyone would follow and believe his words because of it.
The discourse between Socrates and Euthyphro clearly depicts a dilemma when it comes to the question on holiness, moral goodness and the will of God. While Euthyphro is of the opinion that what is dear to the gods is holy, and what is not dear to them is unholy, (Indiana University 6) Socrates seems to be of a different opinion. This discourse occurs at a time when there is a belief in many gods in Greece, each god having different duties. The gods are also known to disagree on a number of issues. Socrates, in trying to counter Euthyphro’s idea he opines that since the gods disagree, they must have different concepts of what is ethical and what is not.
Making enemies and becoming the topic of conversation, the Athenians began to view Socrates as a threat to their beliefs and way of life and sought to end it. In order to end this, Socrates was accused of blasphemy (Mod1SlideC7). Socrates’s accusers took him to court and after Socrates did not play their game by asking to be sent into exile, and in the end, he was sentenced to death. 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.
One of the charges brought against him was corrupting the youth of Athens. Accordingly to the words of those who complained at
Socrates’s official new charge “asserts that Socrates does injustice by corrupting the young, and by not believing in the gods in whom the city believes, but in other daimonia that are novel” (24b, p. 73). By looking deeper into the dialogue of The Apology and Euthyphro, one can see how passionately Socrates strives to express to the Athenian people his innocence in teaching the youth and worshiping of the gods. Socrates maintains his innocence in teaching the youth for three reasons. Primarily, there is no proof or evidence from past examples in which Socrates has taught the youth because no one has come out and said so. Socrates brings up a valid point that his so-called ‘teachings’ haven’t changed over time and therefore if he is accused