Socrates

| Socrates Understanding| Beverly Melcher| Ethics and Moral Reasoning: PHI 208 Dione Johnson| | 3/3/2013| Socrates Understanding The concept of holiness emerges into the dialogue when Socrates is trying to find out how to address the gods in a proper way. He is also trying to find out the definition of piety and impiety from the gods point of view. The reason for this is so that the man, Meletus, who feels that he is bring justified charges against Socrates to the gods, because he is bringing charges against his father of murder.

Meletus feels that Socrates is being impiety or impious to his father in not showing him respect for what he has done. Socrates feels that he is justified in the charges because his father was wrong in not providing the serf with provisions until just could be properly done. In Socrates eyes, his father committed murder, and should be tried for his wrong doings. Piety is doing as I am doing: that is to say, prosecuting anyone who is guilty of murder, sacrilege, or of any similar crime—whether he be your father or mother, or whoever he may be—that makes no difference; and not to prosecute them is impiety.

The next definition, ‘Piety is that which is lived of the gods,’ is shipwrecked on a refined distinction between the state and the act, corresponding respectively to the adjective and the participle, or rather perhaps to the participle and the verb. The third and last definition, ‘Piety is a part of justice’ and “Piety is what is dear to the gods, and impiety is what is not dear to them. ’ Socrates hardly sees the first explanation as a true definition. The second appears to him as to be part of justice which attends to the gods, as there is the other part of justice which attends to men.

Piety or holiness is preceded by the act of being pious, not by the act of being loves; and therefore piety and the state of being loved are different. Euthyphro is simply saying that piety and holiness is learning how to please the gods in word and deed, by prayers and sacrifice (Plato). This type of piety is considered a salvation to the families and states, as to impious or impiety is unpleasing to the gods and brings upon them ruin and destruction. Socrates goal is in placing religion on a moral foundation.

He is seeking on how to realize the harmony of religion and morality, in which is universal wanted of all men (Plato). He describes piety as being an affair to business, a science of giving and asking the true service of the gods of the spirit and is in co-operation with them in all things true and good and which everyone must learn for himself (Plato). The features of dialogue that aligns with the interpretation of his goals are all the questions that Socrates asked of Euthyphro before he has to be seen in the courts of the gods.

Piety is the virtue that can mean a religious devotion, spirituality, or a combination of both. A showing of respect to one’s peers, parents, or the judges of one’s actions whether right or wrong. A man with piety is respected by his responsibilities to gods, country, parents, and kin. It is Socrates strictest sense on what sort of love a son ought to have for his father. References http://www. gutenberg. org/files/1642-h. htm Release Date: November 23, 2008 [EBook #1642] Last Updated: January 15, 2013

The Platonic ‘Death of Socrates Dialogues’, are a quartet of important and influential conversations written by Plato, but told through the eyes of his mentor Socrates. Written in 386BC, they tell the story surrounding the Socrates being charged by the state for piety and corruption of the youth. They are conversations between Socrates, his friends, and his censors, the rulers of Athens. Socrates has found guilty of these crimes and after failing to convince the Athenian statesmen that he had been wrongfully accused, and sentenced to death.

The third story from the quartet is ‘Crito’ where Socrates chats with his wealthy friend Crito, who after bribing a guard, offers to help Socrates escape his sentence. Socrates refuses, and the dialogue throws up a few moral arguments where he explains his reasons to Crito, Socrates argues that it is necessary for the state to punish him as he has not acted within the laws that govern Athens. After all, he has faced the serious charge of worshipping false gods, and by passing these views on to his young followers, further charge with corrupting them.

As he is a ighly respected citizen within Athens, he thinks that he should lead by example and take his punishment. After all, he knew the laws and more than likely and knew what punishment he would incur if caught. No one is above the law. The laws are set by the state in order for citizens to follow a code of behaviour. Failure to adhere to such laws could lead to destruction of the state and it is right that the government made and example of him.

He thinks that if laws are broken, then the ruling class should have the powers to deal with the lawbreakers, otherwise what is the point having he laws, or indeed the state who police the laws in place. He also argued that he has been privileged to be part of the state of Athens and had received all the benefits that come with being a citizen of such an institution. Although the benefits are available to all Athenians, on the premise that you obey its laws. The state that had been so good to him over his 71 years of life, and the laws there provided him and his family with sanctuary.

The state provided security for his parents to marry and to bring him up safely. The state also provided him with the ducation of which made him the man he was. He was using this education against the state by teaching youths to think differently about the gods that the Athenians worshipped. He uses the analogy that the relationship between he, or indeed anyone else and the state of Athens was like that of parent and child. Children should obey their parents, therefore citizens should obey the state. By escaping prison, this would not be obeying the state so he chooses to stay put.

He argues that the state is in fact more important than parents or ancestors, because it is the state that enables its itizens to nurture. This argument is probably not very sound. To say that parents are similar to the state is not accurate. You are born to parents and are expected to comply with state procedure while living there. Occasionally within family life, there can be systematic physical abuse from parents which often goes unreported. Generally you do not get physically abused by the state, unless of course you are unlucky to live in somewhere that shy away from democracy.

By being born into a family, rules are not set as stone, and as a child you are expected in a way not always to act to these rules. Usually there is more leniency within the family when it comes to rule breaking than if you break a state law. He also argues that anyone born into the state and benefiting from the laws of the state has a duty to not to do anything that may help destroy the state, and by escaping this would have a detrimental effect on the state and it laws. He argues that although he was born in Athens, there were no laws stopping him from leaving.

Simply by choosing to live there all his live, he unwittingly enters an implied contract and must adhere to the laws of the state, otherwise face the punishment. He chose ot to live in Sparta or Crete, he chose to live in Athens, so must have satisfaction for the the state, therefore its laws. If he did not agree with the laws, then he would have to prove to the rulers of Athens that they were unjust. Although he tried to convince the the judges that his conviction was unjust, it is within the interests of the state for them to overlook his thoughts and label him a corrupter of the state.

To avoid corrupting the state further, he chose to take his punishment of death by hemlock and not take up Crito’s offer of help to escape as that would be doing something unjust, hile his sentence in his eyes was unjust. In other words, two wrongs do not make a right. It could be said that Socrates thinks being born into state and reaping the benefits of being a citizen. If this was the case, he could be expected to do anything the state asks him to do as he lives there, and is by living there he has a social contract bestowed on him.

There are many moral instances where it is probable that he may not adhere to this tacit agreement, for example, doing wrong by his family. Socrates had the opportunity to except banishment from the state of Athens but chose not to. After all Athens was his home and although he is a respected figure within the state, he was unsure if he would be happy in another state. They would know of his conviction, which basically is a charge saying he did not adhere to state laws, and brandished a trouble maker.

This could make things uncomfortable for him to settle down as he may not be accepted or respected in the manner that he had been in Athens. However, he decided to stand up for himself and try to convince the judges that his views are correct but fail, so accepts his punishment. Even although he thinks the sentence is njust he sees no advantage in escaping. His reputation would be in tatters and would be remembered as a coward who instead of taking his punishment, chose to run away and live a life of obscurity.

Even although he thinks he is being victimised, eluding his punishment he would also be breaking the laws of the state and is still under social contract to obey these laws. By becoming political martyr, he is making a stand against the state while adhering to the laws of the state. Socrates believed his argument to the jury that convicted him was enough to prove the charges were unjust. However when convicted he did not plead to be spared the death sentence as this would have meant that he would have been acting unjust, by accepting that he had wronged.

He argues that there would be no advantage escaping prison. He would be acting unjustly after being convicted unjustly. Those helping him escape would be endangering their lives in doing so. He had lived in Athens all his life, so the thought of living somewhere less civilised was not appealing. He would be seen by his many followers as a man not true to himself and would be deemed a coward. As a man of virtue, he accepted his fate by drinking the poison hemlock thus osthumously ensuring his family and friends would not be harmed and that his reputation as an honourable man was intact.

Socrates puts forward the first instance of social contract theory known. Law makers since have used social contracts to curtail and nurture human behaviour, which many people find unjust. Although in some instances these contracts have been challenged successfully, a couple of examples being the abolition of slavery and women having the same rights as men. Whilst Socrates was unsuccessful in his challenge against he died a man who stood up for his morals and beliefs and possibly the worlds first political martyr.

The Rhetoric word has been derived from the Greek word Rhetor meaning speaker and meaning of the term is an art of public speaking. (Habib, 2005) The art implies various techniques applied by the speaker to create dramatic, intellectual and emotional appeal while delivering the speech. It also implies composition and arrangement of the text making it more appealing and persuasive for the listeners.

Since last two hundred years, the scope and application of rhetoric has considerably changed in the changing literary, social and intellectual contexts.

The art of rhetoric has been modified to meet various needs in the political sphere, in the sphere of institution and discipline of philosophy, in the institution of theology whereby rhetoric has been placed in context to the expression of divine revelation, in the entire sphere of education practices and literary criticism. In all these areas, rhetoric is placed and articulated to meet their specific interests.

Rhetoric was originated in Ancient Greece in the fifth century B.C and got into existence by Sophists, Aristotle, and then from the Roman world to Cato, Cicero and Quintilian. The father of Church St Augustine enlisted the form of rhetoric during the service of Christian doctrine.

Classical rhetoric had five parts: invention, arrangement, style, memory and delivery. There is also held opinion that the art of rhetoric was founded in 476 BC by Syracuse whose student Tisias spread the teachings of this master and brought it into the main stream. All theorists and historians have acknowledged the fact that rhetoric was used profoundly in the political activities and was the most important component in democracy.

The ruling powers had all the right to express independently and in an articulate way and had judged that it was only through the control of language, ideas and worldviews that a particular class could have a control over the economic and political spheres. The trend was true in our ancient and is very well prevalent in the democratic world of today. (Habib, 2005) The following essay will be the analytical comparative study of the two Greeks theological perceptions on rhetoric and the way they developed the same.

Socrates was living during the age of what classicist Eric Havelock has named “the crisis . . . in the history of human communication, when Greek orality transformed itself into Greek literacy” (Havelock, 1988, p. 1).

Before this education was imparted orally and through poetic tradition going back hundreds of years and the Socrates opposed this form of education by proposing that education be made professional and should be imparted through dialectical examination of ideas and he was sentenced to death for the same.  (Havelock, 1988)

Socrates developed his form of rhetoric from differences between the older tradition and the new literacy forms offered by the Greek alphabet. Greeks used different words to develop two different forms of communication-epos also known as discourse that was both in written as well as in oral form.

The public speaking and public discourse were so important in Ancient Athens that new form of rhetoric emerged and this gave birth to many professional teachers of rhetoric. These teachers were called as Sophists emerged from Sophos meaning wise and they were used to teach the art of rhetoric for their use in the courts, legislatures, political forums as well as in the political debates and philosophical dispositions.

Among the Sophists, Protagoras was considered as the most influential among all, and his most important idea was “man is the measure of all things.” (Habib, 2005, p. 65) Protagoras laid his bases on the fact that each argument has two sides and there is equal rationale behind these two sides.

He was accused of expediency in argument, as it could induce the people to think about the worst as best and best thoughts as worst. Another to enhance the concept rhetoric into the public sphere was Gorgias (485-380BC), whose disposition of rhetoric lay on the language of poets. He looked at the world as the world of opposites, contradictions and polarities, which could be reconciled by only the words of poetry. He viewed that rhetoric touched the soul and so poetry.

Styli devices of poetry and sounds of music was rhetoric which could make the speech very interesting and soul touching, while the teachings of Isocrates were dependent on the political events and emphasized on the education as a form or rhetoric device.

Like Socrates, he believed that education should impart moral values and emphasized on truth and virtue as the most important part of rhetoric and should include training of the mind and body as complementary form of activities. All in all their formation of the techniques of rhetoric emerged from the struggles out of the need of their political, educational and cultural causes.

In this poem, the poetess, Elizabeth Sewell, has made an extraordinary resolution to make herself a better woman by facing and living with reality in the start of the New Year. New Year is generally understood as starting of a new chapter of one’s life. People make resolution by taking stock of their lives and resolving to be better ones.

Socrates, the great Greek philosopher, is reported to have said that un-examined life is not worthy of living and it is almost a tradition with the sensible and reasonable people to take stock of their life and to resolve to be better people, at the start of the new year. So, the poetess has decided to live with reality in the New Year. Reality is not always comfortable but pinching and disturbing.

The use of the image “bony arms” points to this fact. But the poetess is resolute and will draw comfort fulfilling her resolution. The phrase ‘draining of long droughts is linked with drinking wine but the poetess intends to drink calmness and thinks it necessary for cleansing herself. It is quite natural and true that in loneliness and quiet one can examine one’s life honestly. It is a self-criticism. Life examined critically purifies one for better future life.

I will drain
Long draughts of quiet
As a purgation;

Reference
These lines have been taken from ‘New Year resolutions’ written by‘Elizabeth Sewell’.

CONTEXT:
Elizabeth Sewell determines to be quite so that she may know and judge her self. She may face the reality of life.

Explanation

In these lines the poetess describes her mental state and the way she would drink to purify her soul. She says that she will drink wine at night secretly. She will have long drops during night and will clean herself from all kinds of evils. This will assist her in helping other people because her own mind and spirit will be free from all types of evils. “Long draughts of Quiet” also suggests that she will keep quiet most of time. This will be the best means for the purification of her soul and it will help her in leading beneficial and successful life. She says; she will talk less and hear more and mold her life into betterment.

Remember
Twice daily
Who I am;
Explanation

In the given lines Elizabeth says, she will remember herself twice daily, in the evening and in the morning. She will take into consideration what her aim of creation is. She will try to understand the purpose of life in general. Perhaps she means that she should recognize herself, which will help her in recognizing God and leading life for benefit of others.

Will lie o’ nights
In the bony arms
Of Reality and comforted

Explanation

These are concluding lines of the poem. Here, the poetess says she will accept reality. While, sleeping at night, she will consider the bitter reality of life. During the new year she will make some promises and pledges. She will sleep on thin, less-fleshy arms of reality. Accepting reality and facts is always a difficult thing, but she will accept it bravely. She will feel relieved and satisfied, when she comes to know that she has spent her life for the benefit of others. The image of bony arms is a hard reality. Even then she will get delight and feel comforted when she has fulfilled her promises and resolutions, she has made on the start of the new year

New
In this poem, the poetess, Elizabeth Sewell, has made an extraordinary resolution to make herself a better woman by facing and living with reality in the start of the New Year. New Year is generally understood as starting of a new chapter of one’s life. People make resolution by taking stock of their lives and resolving to be better ones. Socrates, the great Greek philosopher, is reported to have said that unexamined life is not worthy of living and it is almost a tradition with the sensible and reasonable people to take stock of their life and to resolve to be better people, at the start of the new year.

So, the poetess has decided to live with reality in the New Year. Reality is not always comfortable but pinching and disturbing. The use of the image “bony arms” points to this fact. But the poetess is resolute and will draw comfort fulfilling her resolution. The phrase ‘draining of long draughts’ is linked with drinking wine but the poetess intends to drink calmness and thinks it necessary for cleansing herself. It is quite natural and true that in loneliness and quiet one can examine one’s life honestly. It is a self-criticism. Life examined critically purifies one for better future life.

Critical Explanation:

It is a short and interesting poem written by Elizabeth Sewell. The arrival of New Year is usually celebrated with great fervour and enthusiasm. It is a tradition to make some promises in the light of which one wants to spend one’s New Year. Usually people pledge to become better human beings in the New Year. The poetess makes an extraordinary resolution at the beginning of the New Year. She says that in order to purify her soul, she will remain quiet. She will drink long sips of quietness.

It is a beautiful simile as if quietness is a medicine that can make her clean physically and spiritually from impurities. Quietness seems to purify her because when a person is quiet and is not taking active part in the problems of the world, he gets time to have an insight into his own soul. He can then see his own impurities and drawbacks and can get rid of them. The poetess also wants to do this. She will face the reality. She will not have any high opinion about herself in future. She will not lead a conceited life and have no superiority complex about herself.

From now on, she will speak the truth to herself. She will not misjudge her own personality. In order to fulfill this goal. She will remind herself about her own reality twice during a day. Her assessment about herself will be true and real. During the night also, she will not forget the reality. Nodoubt, it is a time when one forgets bitter realities of this world and is lost in the imaginary world of dreams.

But she pledges that she will not lose her contact with reality though it is hard like the bony arms yet she will prefer it because she has made her pledge and only the fulfillment of her promise will make her happy. It is very hard thing to face the reality and specially the reality about our own self. Our ego and our conceited self stop us from seeing our weakness. Without facing these realities, we are unable to improve ourselves. So the resolution to see the reality is the first step towards reformation.

New 2
“New Year Resolutions” By Elizabeth Sewell (Reference to the Context)

Reference:
These lines have been taken from the poem “New Year Resolutions”, written by Elizabeth Sewell.

Context:
This poem is about the new year resolutions and promises. Another year has lapsed. On the start of the new year, the poetess takes stock of herself very realistically. She tries to make this world a better place by making new pledges. Her untraditional resolution is to face and lie with reality.

Lines 1 – 3
Explanation:
In these lines the poetess describes her mental state and the way she would drink to purify her soul. She says that she will drink wine at night secretly. She will have long draughts during night and will purge herself from all kinds of evils. This will assist her in helping other people because her own mind and spirit will be free from all types of evils.

“Long draughts of Quiet” also suggests that she will keep quiet most of time. This will be the best means for the purification of her oul and it will help her in leading beneficial and successful life. She says; she will talk less and hear more and mould her life into betterment. Lines 4 – 6

In the given lines Elizabeth says, she will remember herself twice daily, in the evening and in the morning. She will take into consideration what her aim of creation is. She will try to understand the purpose of life in general. Perhaps she means that she should recognize herself, which will help her in recognizing God and leading life for benefit of others. Lines 7 – 9

These are concluding lines of the poem. Here, the poetess says she will accept reality. While, sleeping at night, she will consider the bitter reality of life. During the new year she will make some promises and pledges. She will sleep on thin, less-fleshy arms of reality. Accepting reality and facts is always a difficult thing, but she will accept it bravely. She will feel relieved and satisfied, when she comes to know that she has spent her life for the benefit of others. The image of bony arms is a hard reality. Even then she will get delight and feel comforted when she has fulfilled her promises and resolutions, she has made on the start of the new year.

My thoughts

Explanation

In these lines the poetess describes her mental state and the way she would drink to purify her soul. She says that she will drink wine at night secretly. She will have long draughts during night and will purge herself from all kinds of evils.Long draughts of Quiet” also suggests that she will keep quiet most of time. This will be the best means for the purification of her soul and it will help her in leading beneficial and successful life. She says; she will talk less and hear more and mould her life into betterment.

Explanation

In the given lines Elizabeth says, she will remember herself twice daily, in the evening and in the morning. She will take into consideration what her aim of creation is. She will try to understand the purpose of life in general. Perhaps she means that she should recognize herself, which will help her in recognizing God and leading life for benefit of others.

Explanation

These are concluding lines of the poem. Here, the poetess says she will accept reality. While, sleeping at night, she will consider the bitter reality of life. During the new year she will make some promises and pledges. She will sleep on thin, less-fleshy arms of reality. Accepting reality and facts is always a difficult thing, but she will accept it bravely. She will feel relieved and satisfied, when she comes to know that she has spent her life for the benefit of others. The image of bony arms is a hard reality. Even then she will get delight and feel comforted when she has fulfilled her promises and resolutions, she has made on the start of the new year

These lines have been taken from the poem “New Year Resolutions”, written byElizabeth Sewell.

Context:
This poem is about the new year resolutions and promises. Another year has lapsed. On the start of the new year, the poetess takes stock of herself very realistically. She tries to make this world a better place by making new pledges. Her untraditional resolution is to face and lie with reality.

Lines 1 – 3
Explanation:
In these lines the poetess describes her mental state and the way she would drink to purify her soul. She says that she will drink wine at night secretly. She will have long draughts during night and will purge herself from all kinds of evils. This will assist her in helping other people because her own mind and spirit will be free from all types ofevils. “Long draughts of Quiet” also suggests that she will keep quiet most of time. This will be the best means for the purification of her soul and it will help her in leading beneficial and successful life. She says; she will talk less and hear more and mould her life into betterment. Lines 4 – 6

In the given lines Elizabeth says, she will remember herself twice daily, in the eveningand in the morning. She will take into consideration what her aim of creation is. She will try to understand the purpose of life in general. Perhaps she means that she should recognize herself, which will help her in recognizing God and leading life for benefit of others. Lines 7 – 9

These are concluding lines of the poem. Here, the poetess says she will accept reality. While, sleeping at night, she will consider the bitter reality of life. During the new year she will make some promises and pledges. She will sleep on thin, less-fleshy arms of reality. Accepting reality and facts is always a difficult thing, but she will accept it bravely. She will feel relieved and satisfied, when she comes to know that she has spent her life for the benefit of others. The image of bony arms is a hard reality. Even then she will get delight and feel comforted when she has fulfilled her promises and resolutions, she has made on the start of the new year.

Socrates is one of the founders of Western philosophy. The dialogues, written by many of his students, such as Plato, represent a unique way of questioning how we should live our lives, and who do we aspire to become. He was a very intelligent man who was very concerned about ethics, being a good Athenian, and doing what is just. In Plato’s Apology the reader experiences all of Socrates characteristics as if they where sitting right there with all the other five hundred men representing the jury. Socrates is trying to persuade the jury by defending himself against accusations made by fellow Athenian, Meletus. He accuses Socrates of corrupting the youth and of not believing in the gods the city of Athens believes in (Apology, 24 b-c).

Socrates, not being familiar with courts, attempts at defending himself stating that is most likely to engage in a defense not using the language of lawyers, but in the way he is used to speak to the public. Even though Socrates was found guilty in the court of law, hence being sentenced to death, he still persuaded one of the jury men that was not present that day in to believing he was not guilty. I believe that Socrates defended himself more than well against his accusations, and the lack of evidence presented by his accusers gives more than enough reason that he was indeed not guilty. But there are two things I do not agree with Socrates: One being that he says he is not a wise man, and the other being that if someone does wrong to another person unwillingly, is a good enough reason for the wrongdoer to not have repercussions for his acts.

It is Important to see that during the entire defense Socrates is attacking his accusers, mainly Meletus and he shows this right away when he goes through the first accusation of supposedly corrupting the youth. He says that most of the kids that follow him around are kids of very rich parents who just enjoy hearing people being questioned. Socrates states that every time his accusers are asked what he does and what is he teaching that corrupts the young, they have no answer for the question, and that most of the men are just angry because he questioned them on their supposed more than human wisdom (Apology, 23c-d).

The great Socrates was known for going to every man who said was wise and ridiculing them in front of other spectators, in which he made a lot of enemies. It is very important to state that Socrates has been accused before; actually he has been receiving accusations since he was very young. Socrates says that he has two types of accusers: the earlier ones, and the recent ones, which he says listened to what the older accusers said about him making it easier to create a disliking for him. For me this is a very important point, because it is just another reason to believe that the accusations made are just repressed anger and disliking for a man who does not believe in committing any wrongdoing.

Socrates continues his defense attacking Meletus and asking him who is allowed to improve and educate the youth, and he answers that everyone including the jurymen, the audience, the members of the council, the assembly, all Athenians except for Socrates himself (Apology, 24e-25a). This leads him to conclude that Meletus, using an analogy of horses and horse breeders, does not really care about the youth, because he believes that only one man in Athens can corrupt the youth while he goes on thinking that every other Athenian is educating and improving them (Apology, 25b-c). Socrates once again questions Meletus evidence.

In another excerpt of the Apology, Socrates says how can so many people enjoy being around him and listening him questioning others. He then invites all of the supposedly men he has corrupted to stand up as witnesses, but he only finds all of the people that love him and follow him in the audience (Apology, 33c-34b). As you go through the first defense it just keeps on demonstrating the lack of evidence by the part of the accusers, who could not even bring a single person to the stand that has been corrupted. This leads us to Socrates second part of the defense. In the affidavit it says that Socrates is charged for not believing in the cities gods, but when Meletus is questioned he says: “This is what I mean, that you do not believe in gods at all” (Apology, 26c).

This completely changes is early accusation, and it certainly makes it clear that he is contradicting himself. Socrates continues to question Meletus about believing in spirits. Meletus answers a question that made by Socrates, in which he asked, “Do we not believe spirits to be either gods or the children of gods”, Meletus answers “Of course”(Apology, 27c-d). This leads me to my second point; does Socrates really believe in any supernatural being? I believe that he actually does.

One small observation I made was that he mentions the god Zeus more than once during the trial (Apology, 17c, 25c, 35d). But more importantly he talks about A* god who has put him in earth to do the work he does, to be a philosopher, to question what others do not dare. He states that they are treating a gift from god unjustly (Apology 30e-31b). He really persuaded me when he talked about a “divine or spiritual sign” that speaks to him when he needs to be turned away from something (Apology, 31d).

Some jurymen would say he is just talking about this to get away with not being sentenced to death, but I say to those people why would a man who clearly says he does not fear death will lie in the court of law, which he has respected his entire life, because that is how he was brought up. But even if I agree with Socrates defense, there are two things I do not agree with. The first is that he says he is not a wise man, which I find to be completely absurd. In a sense I see it as his way for people taking him for a humble man.

Early in the trial he expresses how he visited all the men who said they were wise, but he never says he questioned who said they were not wise. For Socrates being wise is someone who has knowledge and the more arrogant you are about knowing something the less of a wise man you are. To make my point Socrates never thinks of himself as a wise man, so by using his own explanation of a wise person makes him a wise man if not the wisest in Athens. (Santi remember that he believed that you truly do not understand anything until you understand yourself and your own beliefs. Socrates at least knows this truth about himself.)

The second argument I do not agree with Socrates that if someone does something wrong unwillingly is exempt from being accused or even punished from his acts. I do believe in doing what is just, and I do believe Socrates was prosecuted unjustly. But just because you do wrong unwillingly does not give the state to let you go freely. Take this for example you are in a bar and you are carrying a weapon with you, for precaution measures. The gun accidentally goes of and you injure a person. This would go under unwillingly causing harm to another person, but it does not mean that you should not receive any punishment for acting carelessly while carrying a fire weapon. I arrived at the conclusion that Socrates was never to be punished in any sort of way.

The main reason is because the accusations were vague and were not backed up by any type of evidence. These accusers were blinded by a hatred that was born when they were young and continued to build up when they see the man named Socrates walking through the streets of Athens questioning everything. The city of Athens and the people who lived there were taught everything they know and believe, and those things were never to be questioned because that is what they were taught. Then came Socrates, a wise man, and questioned everything, but I do not believe he ever intended, and surely did not, to corrupt the youth. I strongly believe that he was helping every single human being he spoke to.

Socrates was teaching the people of Athens to question things, to be curious and question everything, and that is the basis of philosophy: to question. One could say that Socrates prophecy was fulfilled his conviction will be shameful for Athens because there will be others to take his place. By reading the Apology I felt a one more jurymen, and I definitely found this man to not be guilty on any of the charges.