Alma Askins Rowe Professor Nathan Poage Philosophy 1301 January 25, 2013 The Charges against Socrates Socrates is described as having neglected his own affairs, instead he was spending his time discussing virtue, justice, and piety wherever his fellow citizens congregated, seeking wisdom about right conduct so that he might guide the moral and intellectual improvement of Athens (Perel). Using a method now known as the Socratic dialogue, or dialectic, he drew forth knowledge from his students by pursuing a series of questions and examining the implications of their answers. Socrates had charges brought against him by a man named Meletus, who was a young man that Socrates did not know very well. These charges that were brought against him caused the indictment of Socrates. One of the charges in the affidavit written by Meletus against Socrates is that he is an evil doer "corrupting the youth" (Grube).
Having integrity forces one to forfeit all selfish or materialistic beliefs and values. Crito exhibits his having a lack of these characteristics in his conversation with Socrates. In his argument Crito brings up the issue of popular opinion. Crito says, “A great many people who do not know you and me very well will be sure to think that I let you down, because I could have saved you if I had been willing to spend the money” (Plato 312). Crito’s argument is clearly
This is because the ruling class only want to benefit their own selfish causes. Thrasymachus is referring to the notion that the weaker class is exploited constantly by the stronger class; laws are put into place to benefit the selfish and greedy. However, as Thrasymachus continues to deliberate what justice is, he agrees that what is right can not always be just. As rulers also make mistakes, act out of emotion, and could put laws in place which can be harmful to those it should protect. Thrasymachus agrees with Socrates’ conclusion that a ruler does not exercise his authority with his own interest but
The two main charges against Socrates are corrupting the young and also not having the proper religious beliefs. Socrates is being charged by a man name Meletus, who is one of three accusers. Socrates had been accused of making the weaker argument stronger and also about things in the sky and under the earth. While being examined by the poets, craftsmen, and orators, Socrates claims that they really do not know what they think they know and is trying to prove that it’s all false. After analyzing many different texts, it seems as if Socrates could be innocent and guilty at the same time.
The first time the Socratic Method appears in the Apology is when Socrates tells the jury of his ‘divine mission’ when he systematically questions various levels of society such as Politicians, Poets and Craftsmen. During this explanation, he describes the Socratic method of questioning and refutation to show the jury that his critics were wrong in claiming that “Socrates is committing an injustice...he makes the weaker argument defeat the stronger and teaches others to follow his example”4. By doing this, he is hoping to show the jury that he
He does not feel that the people understand the real meaning of piety and impiety. Euthyphro is also involved in his own legal matter where he is the plaintiff in a murder trial against his own father. Euthyphro explained to Socrates that the man who is dead was a poor dependant of mine who worked for us as a field labourer on our farm in Naxos, and one day in a fit of drunken passion he got into a quarrel with one of our domestic servants and slew him (Plato & Jowett, n.d). At the command of Euthyphro’s father the man had been bound and thrown into a ditch. Meanwhile messengers had been sent to Athens to inquire of the interpreters of religious concerning what should be done with the man.
The Charges against Socrates In Apology from Plato, Socrates is confronted with some charges from two groups of accusers. The first group of accusers says that Socrates is “guilty of wrongdoing in that he busies himself studying things in the sky and below the earth.” (Plato 19b) Also, they add up that “he makes the worse into the stronger argument, and he teaches these same things to others.” (Plato 19b) The second group of accusers alleges Socrates’ guilt as “guilty of corrupting the young and of not believing in the gods in whom the city believes, but in other new spiritual things.” (Plato 24b-c) These are the charges against Socrates from Apology. When the first group of accusers charges against Socrates, they identify Socrates as a natural philosopher by “a person who studying things in the sky and below the earth.” (Plato 19b) In Socrates’ time, everything was started and ended by gods because Athenian people told stories of gods and made themselves in terms of gods. In Athenian society, the gods were the most powerful being because they created, fashioned, and ruled the world. However, some Greek philosophers were not happy with it, and they started paying tribute to natural processes when they recognized that the natural processes or elemental processes had been upon the earth.
Much of what Socrates uses to defend himself proves otherwise; this is proven in the story of the Oracle from Delphi. What does Socrates think of the gods? Socrates seems to contradict himself on several occasions on this issue. As Socrates defends his charge of atheism proposed by his accusers, he is able to prove to one of his accusers, Meletus, that he believes in the gods. In this essay I will prove that Socrates is in fact not a religious person, but he has had to act religious all his life as so he wouldn’t ever be accused for something such as this and uses this act to completely disprove the accusations made against him.
Reflection #1 Entry #1: Euthyphro In the Euthyphro, Socrates and Euthyphro are having a discussion about Euthyphro prosecuting his own father. Throughout their conversation, Socrates asks Euthyphro a lot of different questions trying to understand why Euthyphro is prosecuting his own father. Euthyphro defended himself by saying it is what is right, and that it doesn’t matter if the one is he prosecuting is a stranger or a relative, he is still a murderer. Euthyphro then gets into a discussion about what is holy and unholy, which Socrates has many questions about, but never gets a straight answer from Euthyphro. By the end of the story, Euthyphro says he has to be somewhere and just leaves Socrates, never fully answering his questions about what is holy.
Republic consists of Socrates's dialogues with various men such as Cephalus, Polemarchus, Thrasymachus, Glaucon and so on and each man argues with Socrates for his definition of justice. For instance, while Polemarchus argues that justice is benefiting friends and harming the enemies (Plato 2), Glaucon claims that it is something which is “ practiced for the sake of rewards and the popularity that comes from a reputation of justice” (Plato 34) or for Thrasymachus, it is “nothing other than the advantage of stronger” (Plato 14) Therefore, in Republic various definition of justice arise. However, among those definitions, what comes into prominence is the definition of Thrasymachus because the definition of Thrasymachus reflects what we understand from justice in modern times; “ established rules” and it is, completely, contrary to the Socrates definition, which is doing someone's his own work. Thus, in this paper, I will examine the arguments made by Thrasymachus and Socrates and by referring Republic, evaluate the reasons why real justice cannot exist. According to Thrasymachus, justice is defined as ' nothing other than the advantage of stronger'.