At the age of 18 he became an Athens citizen and had more rights. He learned from many great speakers of his time, but ultimately found that he had a way of thinking all his own. After becoming a teacher of many, Athens started to fear and hate Socrates for the thought that he was “Poisoning their children’s mind”. At the trial of the century the prosecutors, Meletus, Lycon, and Anytus faced Socrates. Socrates spoke to the jurors that he had done nothing wrong and that he leaves his fate in the Athens god and in the people of the jury.
The only thing I don’t agree with after reading this information is that he corrupted the youth. I think that because Socrates is good person at heart, despite all his wrongdoings, maybe keeping the younger people out of it would’ve been the smart thing to do. According to Meletus and the others, Socrates is the only person in Athens who does not better the youth. I do not agree with this because how can someone blame a person for the corruption of a younger generation. There had to have been more than one person corrupting them in my opinion.
Sophists were skilled in elaborate argumentation; were they would try and make the argument they were focusing on the stronger side, even if it was wrong or weaker. This often made them seem devious as they were working only for the benefit of themselves and their students, who were aiming to become high profile speakers or politicians. Socrates was unlike this in that his main focus was not on argumentation or speaking, he rather focused on questioning virtues to understand morals and ethics. He believed that all opinions were valid which also opposed the views of the Sophists who assumed that the wisest of people were genuinely correct and only they had the ability to teach. The main goal of socrates was unlike that of the sophists.
It seemed like he was a messenger boy for himself and that he was to coward to admit what he had done. On the opposite, Antony camp up. His speech was aimed to turn the public in his favor. He was restricted by many things but he didn't let that set him down. He mocked Brutus in kind words.
Overall, the sources suggest that Wolsey did genuinely try to achieve justice; however they don’t conclusively state that he did this “for all”. This is shown by the sources through suggesting he aimed to override traditions or laws if meant being more just; it is also shown in the opinions and expectations that others held of him. An argument against him genuinely trying to achieve justice for all is the claim that he punished those who didn’t deserve it, however only source three gives this view and, taking into account the provenance of the source, it isn’t entirely trustworthy. Source one suggests to the largest extent that Wolsey was genuinely try to achieve justice for all, source two agrees to the second largest extent as it doesn’t necessarily suggest it is for all, source three disagrees with the other sources entirely and claims he is definitely not just. One factor that all of the sources agree on is that Wolsey went against law and tradition in the name of serving justice.
Tony also learns that everyone is as important as him. First of all, it's important to be aware that self-confidence comes from within not from making others feel bad. In the story, Tony would often bully others because he thought they were better than he and they had more going for themselves. For example, "You see I'm from a tough neighborhood and showing your weakness makes you a target. I was a target when I was young, both for my brothers and those who call themselves my friends.
They were the moral values in which the entire Greek society was built and supported. Despite the fact that violating moral pillars back then could result in serious consequences, the characters did not seem to keep that in mind because they committed their acts so willingly. I think Sophocles was trying to get the point across that looks can be deceiving. I say this because society at that time was supposedly so pure, and the fact that all these characters violated the moral values in which their society was founded shows that there may be more than meets the eye. The characters that disobey pillars in this play are Oedipus, Laos, Jocasta, the party goer, and the shepherd.
6) The subject produces another definition, one that improves on the earlier one. 7) The subject is made to face his own ignorance. This method was used to target fallacies and contradictions within his opponent’s argument and make his opponent aware of the inconsistencies. Socrates’ method was intended to reach a greater understanding of the truth, but not everybody appreciated and shared Socrates’ enthusiasm about his method. Law School is one of the most known platforms for the Socratic method.
He was arrested more than once for resisting the government. His view on just and unjust laws was that an unjust law did not harmonize with the moral law- it just was not right. Martin Luther King Jr. did not want to "evade or defy the law as a rabid segregationist would", but he did not want to stand there and let the government do him and other African Americans wrong; therefore, he broke only the unjust laws, and he did so openly. Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther King Jr. were two men fighting against unfair laws peacefully. Peacefully is the key word.
The two of these men’s views were quite different from each other. Machiavelli believed that as someone with political power, it was much safer to be feared than loved by your subjects. He stated that citizens will be there for you as long as they are benefiting in some kind of way, but the moment things change, they will turn there back on you. If you instill fear in them however, Machiavelli believed, it will restrain citizens because the are afraid of punishment (p353). Eramus‘ beliefs, on the other hand, were on the total opposite end of the spectrum.