They continue to bring up the topic of pious and unpious actions. Euthyphro claims “the pious is to do what I am doing, to prosecute the wrongdoer…not to prosecute is impious.” Then, Socrates exclaims he is the defendant in his case because he believes it is difficult to accept the common knowledge the people believe about the goods, since there is no plausible evidence. As the dialogue continues, Socrates claims that “different gods consider different things to be just…for they would not be at odds with one another unless they differed about these subjects…(page 9, 7e)” Then the same things would be both pious and unpious. Simply, the nature of Socrates is to question and further complicate matters by counter arguments. Then Socrates states that the matter is finding who the wrongdoer is rather than how he must be punished.
“The Allegory of the Cave” and “Qualities of the Prince” (Authored by Plato and Machiavelli, respectively) have different viewpoints in contrast to one another. Looking at the texts, it seems that Machiavelli would be critical of the views Plato expressed in The Allegory of the Cave for a number of reasons. Plato states that people are inherently good, although good can be “seen only with an effort” (35). Machiavelli, on the flipped side, states that “for a man who strives after goodness in all his acts is sure to come to ruin, since there are so many men who are not good” (7), suggesting that most people are by nature not good, and that pursuing the act of being good, will only lead to disaster. Therefore, he would likely think that Plato’s ideology is too optimistic, if not ignorant, and that one must have a realist viewpoint to survive this world.
Is what Socrates says in Crito about the obligation to obey the laws inconsistent with what he says in Apology? In Crito, Socrates’ view of one’s obligation to obey the state-mandated law was profoundly inconsistent against the view he fervently expressed in his defense in Apology, in which he argued that divine law is inherently superior to the law created by men. These two opposing interpretations are problematic and largely contradicting and therefore could not be reconciled given by the strong objections he presented in Apology and throughout his defense and the necessity to obey the city laws in Crito. This paper would elucidate his inconsistent views in Crito and Apology and argue in which law should he follow given his stance on what’s constitute piety and harm. “Men of Athens, I am grateful and I am your friend, but I will obey the god rather than you, and as long as I draw breath, I shall not cease to practice philosophy (Apology, 29d).” He made an emphatic hierarchical distinction between these two laws in which he argued that divine law should dictate one’s moral compass and must take precedence over the laws mandated by men.
They say: “We shall argue that the bad reasoning that Plato attributes to Euthyphro in the eponymous dialogue is to be explained by defects in character. Euthyphro's argument early in the dialogue is an example of how a person's character not only affects the content of a person's argument, which would be unsurprising, but also perverts the person's reasoning itself.” (Vasiliou, 2008, p. 43) The implication for all of us is that we are constrained by our limited understanding of a subject area and by our assumption that we have complete
Socrate's Guilt There is a distinct difference in attitude towards Socrates in the works of the Apology by Plato and the play Clouds by Aristophnes. While both address the controversial nature of Socrate's philosophy of thought, perceptions of Socrate's character differ. This presentation of his character can sway audiences and reader's views regarding Socrate's guilt with his charges. The apology establishes the earlier charges against Socrates during his trial. Namely that he studies things in the heavens and below the earth and that he makes the worse argument into the stronger argument.
The Apology of Socrates The word apology comes from the Greek form of the word “apologia”, which means “defense”. It has a different meaning than our modern understanding of the word. In Socrates’s instance, he is forced to make an apology, or rather a speech in his own defense. He states that he must refute two sets of accusations. The first is from the old longstanding charges that he is frivolously curious and questions the truths of the earth and sky, and the second is current legal charges that state that he recognizes a different God than the God recognized by the state, as well as creating his own false deities (demigods) as well.
His friend Crito comes to his rescue except, Socrates declines this rescue as he explains that doing so would be a breaching of the laws. His reasoning behind is, that by escaping he is favoring those who have condemned him and failing that which is fair and just, the laws; even when these have wrongly condemned him. So he questions whether he ought to break the laws or not. (Plato 49-51) Whether he was persuasive in terms of his escape that is very clear as he does feel he should side with the law, the reader could perceive it differently. While there is a clear understanding of what is right and wrong, looking at both points of view it seems that the overall point is lost to Socrates.
Meno gives examples of different position of people acquiring virtue, without answering Socrates' question, 'what virtue really is.' Meno's examples does not fit one definition hence his answer is considered incorrect by Socrates. And more so in the Meno it states the view of traditional Greeks which goes in favour of a 'moral traditionalist' and not that of Socrates. For Socrates views are in accordance with that of a 'moral rationalist,' therefore in the Meno the view will not work with Socrates'
Socrates, being the philosopher that he was, argued on whether he should escape or not. Socrates’ defense may seem fallible when compared to the “Apology,” yet his premises in “Crito” provide a solid ground on why he should not escape from prison while still holding true to the values set forth in the “Apology.” “…But violence against your mother or your father is considered an unholy act; and it is a far greater sin against your country (Crito 51c).” In Socartes’ parent analogy,
Lack of democracy In many ways the US Constitution is an undemocratic document. Many of the founders were scared of democracy because they believed in bad human nature: people are both virtue and self-interest, so simple democracy can’t work (Federalist #55). In general, the constitution was created to protect the minority from the majority. In order to prevent over use of power, faction (#10) and tyranny a separation of power complex structure (also known as “checks and balances” #51) was built (based upon the philosophy of Montesquieu), under which the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government are kept distinct. Philosophers, such as John Locke, supported the principle in their writings, whereas others, such as