The young men that follow him around are not his students, but try to mimic the way that he acts. He says, however, that as long as he lives he will never stop practicing philosophy. He makes it clear to the court that if they acquit him on the condition that he stops teaching philosophy he will not obey. He tells the court, “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 and am able, I shall not cease to practice philosophy” (Apology 34d). Socrates tells the jury that he will never stop practicing philosophy.
This staple of his beliefs is why he doesn't fear death, but in fact looks forward to it. By escaping he is committing an unjust act against the state, and committing unjust acts ruins the soul. With a ruined soul there is no point in living life as the soul is the only important thing, not the body. Therefore the most important thing is not only living life, but living a just life. While Socrates arguments may be sound in his opinion, I'm not sure if I agree with them.
In the Phaedo, Socrates enlightens Cebes on death, and how death should not be looked at as the end of all means, and instead, should be welcomed by a philosopher. Socrates justifies his position, stating that through death, a philosopher will be able to pursue true wisdom in that the soul is “purged” from the body. Socrates expresses, only those who do not fear death truly posses knowledge and self control. Socrates and Cebes discuss the idea of suicide and Socrates explains to Cebes how suicide should not be an option, even though Socrates feels like death is a release. Socrates explains that the body is a possession of the Gods and the human is not the sole owner of his or her body.
Socrates also admits the obvious in the passage by saying because he has not experienced the after-life, he is not able to pass judgment on what is to come. After thoroughly defending himself against his first charge, Socrates takes a stab at bringing light to the second charge as well: Corrupting the
If Socrates was ugly, and conventional wisdom during Nietzsche's time was that criminals were ugly, is it not possible to argue that Socrates was not a great man at all, but, in fact, a criminal? And because criminals are seen as decadent, can we not also say Socrates was also decadent? If these things are true, then Nietzsche can feel justified in saying that Socrates was not a great man and that all of the people that followed him through the leadership of Plato were also symptomatic of all that was wrong with Socrates and his form of
For instance, Socrates asks “Do not the good do their neighbors well, and the bad do them evil? Meletos answers “Certainly” (26). After this Socrates goes back to his accuses and asked if he intentionally or unintentionally corrupted the youth. When Meletos says Intentionally he brings his point back to how he said neighbors won’t hurt their own neighbors
Socrates- Greek philosopher whose indefatigable search for ethical knowledge challenged conventional mores and led to his trial and execution on charges of impiety and corrupting the youth. Although Socrates wrote nothing, his method of question and answer is captured in the dialogues of Plato, his greatest pupil. Peculiar-Strange or odd; unusual Countenance-Admit as acceptable or possible Hysterectomy-A surgical operation to remove all or part of the uterus Circumscribed-Restrict
Validity in the Charges of Impiety against Socrates Impiety is commonly defined as a lack of proper concern for the obligations owed to public religious observation. Plato’s Apology consists of a speech made by Socrates, a well-known philosopher, in defense of his life and conduct at his trail. Socrates was accused of being impious through accusations such as corrupting the youth of Athens, not recognizing the gods that are recognized by the state, as well as inventing new deities. The question then becomes, with these accusations in mind, are the charges of impiety against Socrates valid? This question is not easy to answer, and is in fact, quite complex.
The prosecution turned over the information but withheld one document. This document was the actual murder confession by the defendant. The defendant was convicted and in post conviction proceedings. As a result the defense counsel raised the issue and demanded a new trial (Oyez Project, 2014). Issues: The issue is whether or not the prosecution violated the petitioner’s due process rights when evidence was withheld by the prosecution that would be favorable to the defendant.
Two of the premises he offers to show that death is not an evil are that “if death is an eternal, dreamless sleep, it is not an evil” and that “if death leads to an after life, it is not an evil. Socrates explains these premises based on his beliefs of death. He explains that he believes death is either two things; something in which you are in go into an endless, dreamless sleep, or it is an action in which your soul moves on to live in another place. He states that if death is an endless, dreamless sleep, that it come across as an unending moment of peace. In the other case, if death is one in which the soul travels to the afterlife, Socrates marvels at the amazing opportunity to be able to spend time with, interact, and learn from the great figures of the past of have who have already passed on to the afterlife, such as Odysseus and