Socrates 'Others Have Wisdom, But Won' T Tell Me The Truth

There are many ways to convey a message to readers. Often times authors, speech writers, etc., refer to Aristotle’s three main concepts of rhetoric, Ethos, Pathos, and Logos. Ethos is considered to be the, “credibility,” of the author. Pathos is the idea of, “emotional appeal,” to the audience. Finally, Logos is the translated as the, “logic,” involved when making a point. All forms of rhetoric have at least one of these concepts, while good arguments incorporate a well balanced mixture of the three.

Socrates, an Athenian philosopher who lived from 469 BC until his very unnecessary death in 399 BC, has had his wisdom called into question many times since he has been studied. But to know whether some is wise, we must first know what it means to be wise. According to Websters Dictionary, to be is wise is : (1) having or showing good judgment; (2) informed; (3) learned; (4) shrewd amd cunning. From this definition, it is clear to me that Socrates was wise in every aspect of the word. He shows this wisdom while

We can do something with Socrates' argument; we can shift his point. For we might regard Socrates' ‘agreement’ as satisfying, not the idea of morality, but the idea of ‘good citizenship.’ Thus we could say: the good citizen is one who abides by his country's laws; if he cannot dissuade the authorities from a law then he obeys it.

Ronald Weitzer “Incidents of police misconduct and public opinion” Department of Sociology, George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052, USA .

The fight to do what is right is not an easy path to traverse, but is one which demands a noble and enduring character. Defending principles of justice with logic and reason in the face of political opposition, is a difficult task to take, but the elusive Socrates boldly undertook this endeavor. In Plato’s Apology, he recalls the daring defence of the principles of truth that Socrates took against all odds. Plato’s recollections, much like the trial of Socrates at the time, has sparked numerous debates amongst scholars who seek to understand the events of the trial more deeply. One such debate has centered on what Socrates meant when he said his speech was nothing more than words spoken at random. Brumbaugh and Oldfather, in their scholarly analysis, contend that Socrates’s speech is riddled with fine polish and organization suggesting that his speech was not random. As will be discussed, there are several examples of organization in Socrates’s speech such as when he provides his jurors with an outline of his speech. Additionally, masterfully woven throughout his defence, Socrates employed many diverse modes of argumentation in a logical and consistent manner lending credence to the notion that he planned his speech beforehand. This skillful use of these modes in Socrates’s argument, all vindicate an intentional design and premeditation. Despite Socrates’s humble assertions

duty towards God. He makes it clear that the obligation to truth is far more closer to God

Despite being taken to court by the Athenians for allegedly corrupting the youth, Socrates continued his line of questioning at his trial. Socrates stated that he saw himself as the only one seeking to uncover the truth about the government and thus the only voice for reform for Athens. His argument continued, later comparing himself and his truth-seeking campaign to a fly on a horse “rousing, persuading, reproving every one of you” (Plato 57). Socrates was so devoted to the idea of truth in government, he refused to renounce his beliefs while facing the death and was willing to argue for them while on trial.

Police brutality and office involved shootings have sparked national debate and created a strain between police officers and citizens. Recently, there have been more home videos that display acts of aggression by police officers. These police officers often use excessive forces or a condescending tone towards people of color which is why there needs to be a better way to mend police and civilian relationship. People should be able to trust the police in their communities rather than fear them.

Socrates says that the young men follow me, but not on my account they try to imitate what I say, which causes their fathers to be angry with me. Socrates says I have been accused of corrupting the youth, but I say Meletus is guilty of such things. For it is Meletus who does not believe in the gods of the city and corrupting the youth, Socrates and Meletus start to argue about the rights and wrongs of the law. Socrates proves his point by saying that Meletus contradicts himself, for he say that Socrates doesn’t believe in gods but Socrates I do believe in the gods.

Socrates and Plato differ from Isocrates by believing that rhetoric, which distributes wisdom, comes from the soul. “The man whose rhetorical teaching is a real art will explain accurately the nature of that to which his words are to be addressed, and that is the soul.” (163) Ones soul is affected by decisions made by the human form and also by those interacting with the soul. The wise man’s soul contains wisdom, truth and intelligence. Thus, by interacting with a bad soul or a soul with bad intent lowers to soul of a just and wise man. Since rhetoric is distributing knowledge to others, the soul should be used when making hard and uncertain decisions. The soul of a wise person holds ultimate truth and its human form knows how to seek out knowledge and understanding to find ultimate truth by ways of questioning.

Plato 's dialogue Meno touches on many important questions of virtue and the ability to teach someone to be good. Arguably one of the most interesting of these questions concerns the nature of learning itself, as Socrates and Meno discuss the relationship between knowledge and true opinion. Socrates concludes by not only defining knowledge and true opinion as separate entities, but also by placing knowledge as the higher of the two in value. He makes this value judgment by pointing to knowledge 's status as opinion that is substantiated with reasoning and truths, arguing this makes knowledge concrete and unwavering. However, due to the notion of change as the central tenant in the search of scientific knowledge, I am inclined to disagree with this static description.

Socrates points to the contradictions in the arguments of the interlocutor and, in the process of discussion, refute answers his interlocutor.

Philosophy can be defined as the pursuit of wisdom or the love of knowledge. Socrates, as one of the most well-known of the early philosophers, epitomizes the idea of a pursuer of wisdom as he travels about Athens searching for the true meaning of the word. Throughout Plato’s early writings, he and Socrates search for meanings of previously undefined concepts, such as truth, wisdom, and beauty. As Socrates is often used as a mouthpiece for Plato’s ideas about the world, one cannot be sure that they had the same agenda, but it seems as though they would both agree that dialogue was the best way to go about obtaining the definitions they sought. If two people begin on common ground in a conversation, as Socrates often tries to do, they are

Born in Athens in 437 B.C, Greek philosopher Plato is one of the most powerful thinkers in history. Coming from Greek aristocracy, Plato had political ambitions as a young man and appeared to follow the family tradition. However, Socrates and his dialectical method of inquiry, which was to question and answer everything to show ignorance, soon captivated Plato.

The police have lost trust among the people they serve. This is because of the controversial use of excessive force when handling people. In some