Relationship Dynamics In The Apology Of Socrates

The fight to do what is right is not an easy path to traverse, but is one which demands a noble and enduring character. Defending principles of justice with logic and reason in the face of political opposition, is a difficult task to take, but the elusive Socrates boldly undertook this endeavor. In Plato’s Apology, he recalls the daring defence of the principles of truth that Socrates took against all odds. Plato’s recollections, much like the trial of Socrates at the time, has sparked numerous debates amongst scholars who seek to understand the events of the trial more deeply. One such debate has centered on what Socrates meant when he said his speech was nothing more than words spoken at random. Brumbaugh and Oldfather, in their scholarly analysis, contend that Socrates’s speech is riddled with fine polish and organization suggesting that his speech was not random. As will be discussed, there are several examples of organization in Socrates’s speech such as when he provides his jurors with an outline of his speech. Additionally, masterfully woven throughout his defence, Socrates employed many diverse modes of argumentation in a logical and consistent manner lending credence to the notion that he planned his speech beforehand. This skillful use of these modes in Socrates’s argument, all vindicate an intentional design and premeditation. Despite Socrates’s humble assertions

In the Meno, Socrates took on a problematic discussion with meno about virtue. The discussion started by meno as he claimed to know what virtue really is but he failed to find an exact definition after he was questioned by Socrates. Meno concluded that he and Socrates don’t really know the meaning, but together they can grasp the true definition of virtue. In this paper I will discuss the result of this discussion which is meno’s paradox by defining the three premises which it consist from and relating each to an example. Moreover I will be answering the following questions: what is meno’s paradox?

identifying the type of accusers he has, which consist of those who are in direct

Only wanting a just verdict, Socrates did not wish to use pathos, or emotions, in the way it was most commonly used. Instead of groveling and weeping in front of the jury for mercy, Socrates merely used those who did such things as an example of what he would not be doing. He stated that he indeed had a wife and children, but he also said that he would not be bringing them forth just receive pity from the jury. His reason for doing so was the reputation of not only himself, but also the reputation of Athens. Through various ways, Socrates called those who wept and begged a disgrace to Athens, also saying that those who did such things should be ashamed and punished. By refraining from doing those childish things, Socrates showed that he would not degrade himself or bring shame upon Athens, even if it meant a better verdict.

Socrates implies that the true nature of this charge was, in fact, vengeance carried out on the part of the power-holders of the Athenian society; the politicians, the poets, the manual artisans.  Socrates, unwillingly made fools out of these people by exposing their speeches as mere rhetoric than actual wisdom and knowledge.  These men who were seen as the wisest and the most enlightened, but in fact, by believing that they are most knowledgeble is what keeps them from real wisdom.  Socrates is also being charged with attacking the Athenian society by corrupting its citizens, mainly the youth.  He defends himself by claiming that either Meletus beleives that Socrates does not corrupt the youth or he does corrupt them but involuntarily.  Socrates bring to light that "if I corrupt them voluntarily, the law does not call upon you to procecute me for an error which is involuntary, but to take me aside privately and reprove and educate me" (33).  Socrates goes on further to say

"Socrates, can virtue be taught?"1 The dialogue begins with Meno asking Socrates whether virtue can be taught. At the end of the Meno (86d-100b), Socrates attempts to answer the question. This question is prior to the division between opinion and knowledge and provides to unsettle both. Anytus participated in Socrates and Meno conversation about virtue. Socrates claims that if virtue is a kind of knowledge, then it can be learned. If it is something besides a kind of knowledge, it perceptibly cannot be taught.

Socrates was thus put to death for teaching others to scrutinize and be skeptical about what they are told, and

Towards the end of Meno, Socrates states that knowledge differs from true opinion in its ability to last over long periods of time. Socrates acknowledges that in many ways, knowledge and true opinion are equal; since both are certainly true, they lead to correct action without distinction. For example, in the passage Socrates compares a man who knows the way to Larisa to one who has a right opinion about the directions but has never actually been there, concluding that both would be equally competent guides. However, knowledge is, he argues, “fastened by the tie of the cause,” meaning one who has knowledge of a certain statement has grounded that truth in explanations and reasoning. Earlier in Meno, Socrates

Even though the government’s position of this case proves worthy in the eyes of jury, Socrates debunks their accusations and proves that he acted out of moral obligation to his own philosophy. Though Socrates willingly accepts his fate, this should not

I am now going to defend Socrates position with my own thoughts and opinions along with

In Euthyphro, he shows that he is a teacher by teaching Euthyphro what is holy. Euthyphro thought he knew what holy is, but Socrates proves that he is wrong and teaches him what really is holy. Socrates teaches Crito what just really is in Crito. This is another case of somebody thinking they know what something is and Socrates ends up teaching them that they didn’t actually know what they were talking about. Meno is a bit different than the first two. In Meno, Meno asks Socrates a question about virtue whereas in the other two Socrates was teaching something that Euthyphro and Crito thought they knew. Meno is taught that you can’t know if virtue can be taught until you have some understanding of what virtue itself is. Meno had no understanding of what virtue was or if it could be taught, but Socrates gave him a basic understanding of what virtue is and that it can’t be taught. Socrates told people things things they didn’t know, and he showed them things they never saw. Socrates was definitely a

Throughout the readings of The Apology of Socrates and Crito I have found that Socrates was not a normal philosopher. It is the philosopher's intention to question everything, but Socrates' approach was different then most other philosophers. From one side of the road, Socrates can be seen as an insensitive, arrogant man. He did indeed undermine the laws so they fit his ideals, leave his family, and disregard the people's values. On the other side he can be seen as an ingenious man who questioned what many thought was the unquestionable. As he can be criticized for disregarding the many's ideals he can also be applauded for rising above the daily ways of popular thought. He

In Plato’s works Apology and Crito there is an attempt by Socrates to defend himself in court and defend his choice to receive the death penalty when found guilty. Although he makes very valid and strong arguments throughout one can only wonder why such a wise person would choose death over life. The following essay will analyze three quotes from Apology and Crito, find the correlation between them, and reveal any flaws that may exsist inside these arguments made by Socrates.

With the use of Socrates’ elenchus , Meno finds himself in aporia , and leads him to introduce us to, what is titled, the paradox of knowledge. It is, as he states:

In a closed society, authority figures manipulated people’s mind, citizens didn’t recognize what is right and wrong due to their ignorance. Socrates