Order ID 377589343_Plato's Apology

.docx

School

Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

125

Subject

Philosophy

Date

Nov 24, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by JusticeAntelope23343

1 Question and Answer Student's Name Professor's Name Course Name Date

2 Question and Answer Plato's Apology Socrates' trial, a live well lived Many people think that the trial of Socrates is the most important legal case in history. Socrates was well-known for challenging long-established doctrine and calling into question the legitimacy of established authorities. He questioned the established authorities and put long-held beliefs to the test. The main charges against Socrates were with respect to his impact on young people. It was alleged that he was corrupting the young generation and that he had no belief in the state gods. Socrates defended and argued, saying he had not done either of the charges he was accused of. Meletus provided the most significant incriminating testimony against Socrates. He accused Socrates of being a detrimental impact on young persons and of not believing in the state gods. Socrates, in his defense, asserted that he was innocent of both of the offenses for which he was being accused. He was attempting to demonstrate that he was an upstanding citizen who had been falsely accused. He was not aiming to win and triumph in the trial; instead, he was seeking to show that the accusations leveled against him were untrue. In the end, the jury found Socrates guilty, and he was sentenced to death. But Socrates continued to say that he was innocent until the end. He thought he had done nothing wrong and the charges against him were false. The fact that Socrates was sentenced to death even though he said he was innocent is enough evidence for my interpretation. This shows that he was not trying to win the trial; he was just trying to prove that the charges against him were false. Related to Euthyphro

3 This depends on what you mean when you say "holy." If "holy" implies that something is set aside by God and should be revered and treasured, both could be true. But the second conclusion must be wrong if one thinks of "holy" as something good by itself. The issues that occur when any answer is given depending on how one defines "holy." Suppose one defines "holy" as something set apart by God and to be cherished. In that case, either answer could lead to a situation in which some people feel that particular behaviors are good in and of themselves, while others believe that the same actions are only good because God requires them. This may result in conflict and division. If one comprehends "holy" to imply something inherently good, then either answer may result in people believing that all actions are good since they are commanded by God. This, in turn, could persuade people into believing that they are required to engage in certain behaviors and acts. No, neither of the conclusions can be right. If God likes it when people kill each other, that would mean that God approves of murder, which most people don't think is true. So, either one of the conclusions is wrong. Possible meanings of Protagoras' saying, "Man (The human being) is the measure of all things." The meaning of what Protagoras said can be taken in many different ways. One is that each person is the best judge of their experiences and that no one else can understand another person's point of view. This point of view is based on the idea that everyone's past experiences and current knowledge are different, so everyone's view of the universe will be different from everyone else's. For example, one person may feel that the world is safe and welcoming, while another may feel that the world is dangerous and unwelcoming. Because each person's

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help