Socrates 30a-30b Argument

In the retelling of his trial by his associate, Plato, entitled “The Apology”; Socrates claims in his defense that he only wishes to do good for the polis. I believe that Socrates was innocent of the accusations that were made against him, but he possessed contempt for the court and displayed that in his conceitedness and these actions led to his death.

With the question of human condition being answered, Socrates now can answer another one of our fundamental questions. This question is Solution. Solution proposes a way to fix what has gone with the world and mankind. In Socrates’ eyes, the world’s greatest problem was the attachment to the human body. He proposes that this can be fixed by detaching oneself from the body. Socrates partially explains this by saying “It seems that so long as we are alive, we shall keep as close as possible to knowledge if we avoid as much as we can all contact and association with the body, except when absolutely necessary; and instead of allowing ourselves to become infected with its nature, purify ourselves from it until God himself gives us deliverance. In this way, by keeping ourselves uncontaminated by the follies of the body, we shall probably reach the company of others like ourselves and gain direct knowledge of all that is pure and uncontaminated – that is, presumably, of Truth.” (Phaedo 67a-b). Socrates also talks about the importance of purification of the mind as another solution, which ends up coming back to the separation of the soul from the body. This can be seen when Socrates

Plato’s Apology is the story of the trial of Socrates, the charges brought against him and his maintaining of his own innocence throughout the process. At the onset of the trial, Socrates appears to challenging the charges, which included corrupting the youth, challenging belief in the gods that were accepted and reveled by the State, and introducing a new religious focus, but also belittles his own significance and suggesting that he will not attempt to disprove that he participated in the actions maintained by the court. In essence, Socrates appears almost self-effacing, and his defense surprises even his accuser, Meletus. But by the end of the Apology, Socrates becomes almost a different person,

Through several dialogues Plato gives readers accounts of Socrates’ interactions with other Athenians. While some may think of him as a teacher of sorts, Socrates is adamant in rejecting any such claim (Plato, Apology 33a-b). He insists that he is not a teacher because he is not transferring any knowledge from himself to others, but rather assisting those he interacts with in reaching the truth. This assistance is the reason Socrates walks around Athens, engaging in conversation with anyone that he can convince to converse with him. An assertion he makes at his trial in Plato’s Apology is at the center of what drives Socrates in his abnormal ways, “the unexamined life is not worth living for a human being” (38a). Socrates, through aporia, looks to lead an examined life to perfect his soul and live as the best person he can be. This paper looks to examine the ‘unexamined life’ and the implications rooted in living a life like Socrates’.

The Apology was written by Plato as an account of the defense that Socrates presented during the trial in which he was condemned to death. Socrates gave this apologia, or defense of one’s actions, against the accusations that he did not believe in any gods, and that he was corrupting the young men of Athens. Not being as skillful in the art of oratory as his accusers, Socrates admitted that he would, as plainly as possible, present only truthful and logical refutes to the accusations that were against him. Being wise in the way of rhetoric, Socrates used pathos, ethos, and logos to argue in his defense. Although ultimately executed, Socrates masterfully defended himself in court and proved that he was a man of both virtue and wisdom.

   In any case of law, when considering truth and justice, one must first look at the validity of the court and the system itself.  In Socrates' case, the situation is no different.  One may be said to be guilty or innocent of any crime, but guilt or innocence is only as valid as the court it is subjected to.  Therefore, in considering whether Socrates is guilty or not, it must be kept in mind the norms and standards of Athens at that time, and the validity of his accusers and the crimes he allegedly committed.  Is Socrates guilty or innocent of his accusations?

Part of this ties into the fact that Socrates convinces not only his followers but to the jury that contrary to popular belief, he knows nothing. At the beginning of the Apology, he states that “I am wiser than this human being. For probably neither of us knows anything noble and good, but he supposes he knows something when he does not know, while I, just as I do not know, do not even suppose that I do. I am likely to be a little bit wiser than he in this very thing: that whatever I do not know, I do not even suppose I know”. (21d). His humility and modesty are outwardly distinguishably from this very speech alone. If one feels as if they do not have the abilities to rebel against the laws of the land by way of committing political atrocities, they are more than likely to a.) avoid rebellion and b.) respect the laws. Respecting the laws is the exact principle that Socrates stood by. Even if Socrates knew nothing as he claimed, what he did know was that obligation to the law was fundamental. Though he didn’t know anything, he knew that authority for the law was the foundation of a prosperous

“Is the unexamined life worth living?” (The Apology, 2016, para. 48). This question has been asked by people since the time of Socrates. Many people delve into the quandary of this question seeking a greater understanding of their purpose. Often times, people live on the surface and never truly strive for self-examination, whereas others believe it is crucial to deeply examine one’s true self. Every life is worth living. However, the difference between simply existing in an unexamined life versus living life as God intended is momentous. An examined life is lived for the benefit of others more than oneself. Socrates’ question has revealed several different truths, including the value of self-examination, the importance

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

The concept of living “the good life” means something different for everyone. There is a general understanding that living “the good life” is associated with unyielding happiness and lasting satisfaction. The exact meaning of this desired life was pondered by thinkers and philosophers for hundreds of years. They constructed principals of behavior, thought, and obligation that would categorize a person as “good”. Although some of these ancient philosophies about “the good life” had overlapping ideas, their concepts varied widely. This contrast of ideas can be examined through two major characters in two famous works: Aeneas in “The Aeneid” and Socrates in “The Apology”. Aeneas exemplifies the philosophy that the direct route to “the good life" is through faith, trust in the Gods, and family, while Socrates in “The Apology” emphasizes free will, and vast knowledge of life.

Socrates, the father of western philosophy, was an incredible apologist. While he never wrote any books of his own, his teaching is filtered through the ages from his apprentices. Plato, one of his students, wrote “The Apology” describing Socrates’ defense against the accusations that led him to be on trial. The story begins with Socrates opening with an appeal to the jury. His defense is simply his skills of rhetoric. Instead of bringing evidence, as seen in a normal court of law today, he decides to defend himself with logic and reason. He shows cool composure in facing prosecution from a jury that was biased against him. In the Apology, Socrates demonstrates his knowledge, courage, and fortitude when facing his accusers and responding to their challenges but also shows his natural tendency to be blunt and abrasive.

One of the arguments that Socrates first shows throughout the Apology is that he is being guided by the work of his Gods. He says that he is not scared to be hated because he knows that many people in Athens only dislike

Socrates’ argument for why the soul is analogous to the city begins with an observation--that the city is comprised of individuals. The city is therefore a reflection of the characteristics of the individual. This observation allows Socrates to derive the characteristics of an individual from the characteristics of the city that had previously been discussed and established. However, this task is more difficult than it seems at first because of the differences between the soul and the city.

Liberation here in the visible realm comes from recognizing the hindering function of the body in the soul's search for knowledge. Socrates comments that a soul associated too closely with the

In this paper I will be discussing the tripartite (three parts) of the soul that Socrates discussed in chapter 6 of Plato’s Republic, and I will compare and contrast them to that of Aristotle and Anthony Kenny. In Plato’s Republic the three parts of the soul consist of the rational, spirited and, desire. In this dialogue the three parts of the soul go hand and hand with three parts of a just society.