Comparison Between The Defense Of Socrates And Plato

As a defender of civic virtue, the significance of obligation and authority of one’s representative government epitomizes the magnitude of respect that Socrates had for Athenian Jurisprudence, irrespective of the fact that he was prosecuted against. In the accounts of the Apology and Crito, there exists a plethora of evidence that demonstrate Socrates’s adherence of institutionalized authority. His loyalty of the Athenian State derives from his notion that the obligation to surrender to the law manifests a just society. One may ask, “how is it possible for a persecuted man to continue to profess allegiance to a polity that sought his trial and execution”? Though many would not have the capacity to sustain such integrity, Socrates had his reasons in

Blanchard, is a professor political science professor at Northern State University. He is also the author of many author book and articles. In his article, “The Enemies of Socrates: Piety and Sophism in the Socratic Drama,” he portrays the collision between the philosopher and his fellow citizens is the central dramatic event. These collisions between the philosophers’, tie the paper to the ideas of Socrates. In the article he mentions that Socrates dies because he arouses pious indignation. He makes his journal stronger by

The Crito and the Republic were both works of Plato. Plato’s works were divided into early, middle and late dialogues. The Crito falls into the category of the formal while the Republic falls into the category of the latter. In his early dialogues, Plato was influenced by Socratic philosophy but as he ages, he starts to develop his distinct and independent philosophy. Justice is the fundamental concept that will be discussed in this paper. The scope of discussion will mainly revolve around the Crito, the Apology and the Republic. In Socrates’ submission and acceptance of his sentence lies the implication that Socrates agrees with democracy as a political system. Plato, on the other hand,

He goes on to tell the story of why he began to challenge the intellectuals of society in the first place. Socrates tells of a deceased friend by the name of Chaerephon who “… went to Delphi and boldly asked the oracle to tell him whether… there was anyone wiser than I [Socrates] was, and the Pythian prophetess answered that there was no man wiser.” This troubles Socrates, and he contemplates what this statement really means. Unable to come to a sound conclusion, he devises a plan to get the answer he seeks: “I reflected that if I could only find a man wiser than myself, then I might go to the god with a refutation in my hand. I should say to him, ‘Here is a man who is wiser than I am; but you said that I was the wisest.’” After meeting with a man who had a reputation for being wise, however, Socrates departed without the man wiser than he. He left the man, thinking to himself: “Well, although I do not suppose that either of us knows anything really beautiful and good, I am better off than he is – for he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows.” After encounters with multiple men who possess supposed wisdom, Socrates realizes the prophecy must be correct: “… but the truth is, O men of Athens, that God only is wise; and in this oracle he means to say that the wisdom of men is little or nothing…” Socrates proceeds to question Meletus in front of the councilmen. He questions Meletus about the charges he has brought against him and his reasons

Plato was an Ancient Greek philosopher who lived between 428-432 B.C. He wrote mainly in dialogues, to stay true to how Socrates communicated philosophy. Plato displayed what is considered Socrates’ philosophy throughout the dialogue The Apology. In The Republic, Socrates is mainly used as a mouthpiece to communicate Plato’s philosophy. Socrates follows a philosophy best explained as “I do not know”, whereas Plato tries to find the ultimate solution to philosophical problems. In this essay, I will argue how Socrates has the best philosophical approach compared to that of Plato.

There are times in every mans life where our actions and beliefs collide—these collisions are known as contradictions. There are endless instances in which we are so determined to make a point that we resort to using absurd overstatements, demeaning language, and false accusations in our arguments. This tendency to contradict ourselves often questions our character and morals. Similarly, in The Trial of Socrates (Plato’s Apology), Meletus’ fallacies in reason and his eventual mistake of contradicting himself will clear the accusations placed on Socrates. In this paper, I will argue that Socrates is not guilty of corrupting the youth with the idea of not believing in the Gods but of teaching the youth to think for

Throughout the piece Socrates, deals largely with the examination of others. In “The Apology”, Socrates said, "above all I should like to spend my time there, as here, in examining and searching people's minds, to find out who is really wise among them, and who only thinks that he is." In this, we see how the philosopher views the people around him. He thought that it was his responsibility to examine the “wise” men around him and expose their false claims of wisdom as ignorance (“The Apology”, n.d.). He is implying that it is important to evaluate the people around you, and their claims of being wise as well as that should not take everything at face value and should gain our own sense wisdom by examining ourselves and the people around us.

Plato’s account of Socrates’ defense against charges of corrupting the youth and heresy, reveal the ancient teacher’s view of justice as fairness and support of rule of law. In the Apology, Socrates faces a moral dilemma: to either accept his punishment for crimes he did not commit or to accept the assistance of his friends and escape death by the hand of the state. His choice to accept death in order to maintain rule of law reveals his belief of justice. He beliefs his punishment to be just not because he committed the crimes but because his sentence came through a legal process to which he consented. By sparing his life, he would weaken the justice system of Athens which he values above his own existence. This difference between the two men’s beliefs regarding justice draws the sharpest contrast in their views of effective leadership and government.

The portrayal of Socrates, through the book “the trial and death of Socrates” is one that has created a fairly controversial character in Western history. In many ways, Socrates changed the idea of common philosophy in ancient Greece; he transformed their view on philosophy from a study of why the way things are, into a consideration man. Specifically, he analyzed the virtue and health of the human soul. Along side commending Socrates for his strong beliefs, and having the courage to stand by those convictions, Socrates can be commended for many other desirable characteristics. Some of those can include being the first martyr to die for his philosophical beliefs and having the courage to challenge indoctrinated cultural norms is part of

Plato’s “Defense of Socrates” follows the trial of Socrates for charges of corruption of the youth. His accuser, Meletus, claims he is doing so by teaching the youth of Athens of a separate spirituality from that which was widely accepted.

In the Republic, Plato places Socrates as the main ‘character’ to express his philosophical views on the world. Plato lived in Athens and as such his criticism of democracy can mainly be applied to Athenian democracy and is fundamentally different from the democratic systems we have nowadays. In order to understand Plato’s position on democracy, the essay will use the Republic as main source to point the wrongs of democracy according to Plato. This essay will detail in four parts the elements that support Plato’s points against democracy. These points will be given in context to Plato’s time and will be both based on the historical context of his life. The first part will explore Plato’s sense of justice and what justice should be. Using his perspective on virtue and justice, this part will explain how Plato perceived a just world and as such this part will demonstrate how democracy is not compatible with his views on justice. The second part will explain how Plato defends the idea that philosophers should rule as an alternative, not only to democracy, but most ruling systems. This part aims to provide information on what Plato thought was wrong with democracy by

Socrates is believed to be one of the greatest philosophers of all time and he is credited as being the founder of western philosophy. This paper will explain some of his views to the most fundamental questions of today’s age. These questions will include topics about morality, the human condition, solution, and death. After Socrates’ views on these topics are explained, a critique will be done on his answers. I will start out by explaining exactly who Socrates is, and the time that he lived in. To start out, we will first examine Socrates’ view on morality.

Socrates was a pompous man who believed that he was wiser than most, if not all, Athenian men of his time. He is also credited as one of the fathers of western philosophy, his own philosophy revolving around the welfare of one’s soul and reflecting on what the good life was. He was told by an oracle that he was the wisest of men and spent a great deal of time trying to prove it false, he decided that he was considered wise for accepting that he knew nothing, and never claimed to know anything that he questioned. In Plato’s text “Apology” Socrates is depicted as a man who was arrogant, hypercritical of others, and fixed on his ways no matter the consequences. He had the qualities of a man who saw no error in what he was doing because he

In Plato’s The Republic and The Apology, the topic of justice is examined from multiple angles in an attempt to discover what justice is, as well as why living a just life is desirable. Plato, writing through Socrates, identifies in The Republic what he thought justice was through the creation of an ideal city and an ideal soul. Both the ideal city and the ideal soul have three components which, when all are acting harmoniously, create what Socrates considers to be justice. Before he outlines this city and soul, he listens to the arguments of three men who hold popular ideas of the period. These men act to legitimize Socrates’ arguments because he finds logical errors in all of their opinions. In The Apology, a different, more down-to-Earth, Socrates is presented who, through his self-defense in court, reveals a different, even contradictory, view of the justice presented in The Republic. In this paper, the full argument of justice from The Republic will be examined, as well as the possible inconsistencies between The Republic and The Apology.

Plato’s view of division of labour is divided into three types of peoples’ task in life which are workers as farmers, military type and guardians. Actually, the ruling task of Plato’s Republic is the guardian’s responsible who had achieved the greatest wisdom or knowledge of good. Due to that, Plato claims that “philosopher must become kings or those now who called kings must genuinely and adequately philosophise’’ (Nussbaum1998, p.18). However, people argue about the reasons that the philosopher should rule the city, while the philosophers prefer to gain knowledge instead of power, thus they don’t seek this authority. Therefore, the argument should alter to why the philosophers are the best ruler to govern people. Indeed, Plato states