What do you think about Socrates' arguments as to why he will not try to clear his name or be released from prison?
19 Comments
Lexi Fees
9/22/2010 01:29:11 am
Socrates reasons for proving himself guilty and imprisoning himself stem from his own morality and his reverence for the laws of his city. I have to respect that even though his stubbornness is spelling out the end of his life, he is still holding strong to his beliefs and morals and respecting the city that has imprisoned him. It shows that Socrates really believed in what he was teaching and was willing to die for his life's work. That is something that anybody can respect, whether they agree with it or not.
Reply
Katie Sprague
9/22/2010 09:38:28 am
I agree with Socrate's defense and his refusal to give up philosophizing. He states that the unexamined life isn't worth living. If he were to clear his name, he would essentially be going against everything he believed in. For Socrates, philosophy is about questioning and clarifying knowledge, particularly of oneself. His trial subsequently asks the people of Athens to examine themselves. Their choice to execute Socrates instead of accepting the challenge Socrates offers them is the ultimate lesson: one that Socrates is teaching through his death.
Reply
Lauren Errichiello
9/25/2010 10:38:09 am
Although Socrates had plenty of opportunities to either secure an acquittal or be released from prison, he refused to do so. He could have begged for mercy, gotten a pity vote because of his family, or promised to behave differently. However, he chose to stand up for his beliefs and proved that the charges against him were wrong. As for Scorates' arguments, he showed that he truly believed in what he taught; even when he was being sentenced to death, he never backed down from his beliefs. This is an admirable trait that Socrates' possessed. If he had backed down from his beliefs, he would have lost his life work; there would have been no reason for him to live. So instead of living a life without his philosophies, he decided he would rather die.
Reply
Mr. McC
9/25/2010 03:02:55 pm
Yes, but "What do you think about Socrates' ARGUMENTS as to why he will not try to clear his name or be released from prison?" By this, I mean that you need to reference one of his arguments specifically!!! There are three of them. Show me you have read. Show me you know what you're talking about. I don't want you to just copy or spit back a summarized or paraphrased version of what the Humanities textbook says. Anyone can do that. A good blog references the reading directly!!!
Reply
Melissa Looby
9/26/2010 03:34:39 am
Socrates' arguments are directly from his beliefs. He doesn't clear his name becuase he believes he is doing God's work. Socrates even says in response to the suggested punishment of exile and ceasing the teaching of philosophy, "For I tell you that this would be a disobedience to a divine command, and therefore that I cannot hold my tongue". He is so devoted to the God that he is being accused of denying that he will literally give up his life for Him.
Reply
Lexi Fees
9/26/2010 08:26:18 am
Alright, let's see if I can actually answer the question this time. So, as we all know, Socrates was charged with not recognizing the gods that are recognized by the state, or atheism, inventing new deities, and corrupting the youth of Athens. Referring to his arguments against these charges, let's start with my personal favorite. To prove the first two charges wrong Socrates simply pitted them against one another by stating that it was impossible for an atheist to create new deities because that would imply that he believed in god in some way. Therefore, Socrates argues that the first two charges contradict one another. One cannot help but appreciate the way that Socrates can argue to the point where his opponent contradicts his own premises. As for the third charge, Socrates simply points out that the youth he has supposedly corrupted are still standing by his side. Along with that, he declares that not even the parents of said youth claim Socrates is a corrupting influence. While I don't find this argument as amusing or impressive as the first, it is hard to overlook. If the parents of the youth, the primary caregivers, don't see Socrates as a threat then the accusers' opinions really don't matter. As a final and prevailing argument, Socrates explains that he cannot fear death because he does not know what happens after death and that it is the people of Athens that should fear a death sentence since they will be losing Socrates' valuable services. This argument is another that I admire. Socrates not only accepts his own death, but pretty much spits in the faces of all those who have accused him by saying that they will inevitably be losing something much more valuable than they can imagine - his beliefs and teachings. In this way, Socrates is able to stand true to his own beliefs in the face of death.
Reply
Ryan Ehredt
9/26/2010 09:31:08 am
Hello everyone, how's it going? Being that we only know of Socrates from Plato, we cannot know for certain wheather the portrayal of Socrates' death an trial is fact or fiction. Have you considered that his "Matrydom" may just have been a desired suicide? Perhaps Socrates grew tired of residing with those he considers ignorant fools, and decided to explore the mystery of death. Regardless, Plato's version of history holds Socrates in high esteem. His usage of logic to overcome the atheist and Heretic charges by showing their contradictory nature is respectable, even if it makes him look like an insufferable know-it-all. With the third charge, however, continued logic can unravel Socrates counter. Even if the corrupt kids' parents don't think he is corrupting, perhaps the parents have in turn been corrupted by the Kids.
Reply
Katie Sprague
9/26/2010 09:43:59 am
Ryan makes a great point when he says that parents have been corrupted by the kids. Socrates' main defense against the charge that he has been corrupting children lies in the word of the parents. Socrates' defense relies on the parents. For if the parents believe their child to be good, then he must be good. This seems to contradict his earlier statement that he is wiser than everyone else, simply because he knows that he knows nothing. Socrates' defense against this third and final charge is weak. He needs to prove that the children he has been teaching are "good" in the eyes of the state. Basically, Socrates needs more evidence to throw this charge off. The twisted words and scholarly tone he uses can only deceive those who aren't really looking.
Reply
Amy Sticha
9/26/2010 09:46:40 am
Well, I was going to talk about how I thought Socrates was being foolish and doing more harm than good in DEMANDING to die when he was offered alternatives, but Melissa stopped me dead on that count - 'Sticking to virtues so tightly that one is willing to die for them is quite an astonishing attribute, especially in these days when conformity is on the rise and individuality and free-thinking is being depleted.' Truer words, to my mind, never were uttered. The ability to stand strong against the crowd is one of the virtues I most admire. And though I do disagree with a few of Socrates's arguments, I truly cannot help but admire him for the same reason I cordially dislike him: his innate stubbornness and refusal to back down. I also found myself swayed by his avowal that "a man who is good for anything ought not to calculate the chance of living or dying; he ought only to consider whether in doing anything he is doing right or wrong - acting the part of a good man or of a bad." I do not believe that one ought to seek out death - as I felt that he was doing, by the end of his trial, which is the main source of my conflict with him - but that death should not be something to be terrified of either. Humans all die eventually. That is inevitable, cryogenic technology or not. So, to use Socrates's beloved logic, I think that since death is inevitable, and all humans must die eventually, a death may as well do some good in passing, and that death should be neither courted nor fled from, but met with courage and purpose. On that count, he succeeds spectacularly, and makes no question of it, telling the Athenian court: "If God orders me to fulfill the philosopher's mission of searching into myself and other men, and I were to desert my post through fear of death, or any other fear; that would indeed be strange, and I might justly be arraigned in court for denying the existence of the gods, if I disobeyed the oracle because I was afraid of death." So while I still think he's a bit too eager to die when he IS given options, I cannot fault him. Wise as he may or may not be, he is a just man.
Reply
Amy Sticha
9/26/2010 10:01:30 am
Have to agree with Ryan and Katie on this one. Socrates avows that man is never evil by accident: that "good do their neighbors good, and the evil do them evil." I utterly and completely disagree on that count. No one is ever evil intentionally. No one wakes up and says, "I feel like a jerk, I'm going to go drop puppies off bridges and kick kittens because I want the world to be a scummy place." If there's one thing people are good at, it's rationalizing their actions. People are very, very good at making themselves believe that they had a good reason to do what they did. And, on a variation of the same note: the idea that evil is only ever done intentionally. Several times, I have found out that some comment I meant as a joke was taken the wrong way and hurt feelings, or that by trying to help, I accidentally screwed things up worse than ever. Misdeeds do not by any means need to be intentional. Also, his idea that you are either good or evil, and there is no gray space. People never only do good, or only evil; Lincoln unified the country, but he also had a number of his political enemies imprisoned without trials, and Nixon may have been an awful person, but he still managed to patch things up with China. Humans are neither good nor evil, but one huge and conflicted mess of the two. Such is life.
Reply
Hannah Diedrick
9/26/2010 10:21:24 am
Well...since everything I had to say is already said...
Reply
Maggie DeGrand
9/26/2010 10:44:44 am
Socrates could have won his case by using other tactics that were (and still are) common in the court systems such as bemoaning his condition, pleading for the sake of his family, praying for the pardon of his crime publically, etc. However, he chose to refuse to back down from his beliefs. I have to agree with him that the act of begging for his life would have made him, in appearance, less extra-ordinary. He said it best; "I will not bring [my family] hither in order to petition you for an acquittal… my reason simply is that I feel such conduct to be discreditable to myself, and you, and the whole state."
Reply
Ava Henning
9/26/2010 11:18:28 am
At first glance, I like Amy thought that Socrates was just being foolish. His arguments seemed so self centered and foolish. His words sounded so egotistical especially when he was talking about being this special guy, chosen by the gods. But then I reread the argument about why he felt he couldn't give up his philosophy. Socrates stated that even though he respected the juries authority he believed that God had the ultimate authority and it was his first priority to obey him. Regardless of whether or not Socrates was really called by God to philosophy one has to respect his willingness to go against so many people in order to do what he believed in. By accepting his death and not fighting it he showed that he really believed in what he was doing, which is more than most people can say.
Reply
Maggie DeGrand
9/26/2010 11:22:38 am
Socrates' defense against corrupting the youth charge is both strong and very brittle. On the one hand, the charge should have been dismissed because of the absense of complaining witnesses. But then those people who should have complained could have also been affected by the philosopher's teachings. He was correct in pointing out the error in the prosecutor's argument that, indeed, he was not the only 'evil' influence on the youth of Athens. However, that does not mean that he did not influence the youth in a certain rebellious manner. After all, he did go around challenging every authority figure he came into contact with. Because he did challenge their beliefs, a casual observer could recognize and adopt this behavior on a more extreme spectrum, thus rationalizing that Socrates' method of 'arguing' could be used to violently usurp an entire government.
Reply
Frank Cusimano
9/26/2010 11:50:40 am
Socrates could be perhaps the most compelling and efficient lawyer. He states that he himself is smarter than all men because he knows that he knows nothing. This is the basis of all of his arguments. It causes any opposition to feel insecure of both themselves and what they know. One will begin questioning the foundation of there being, and ultimately be to wrapped up with attempting to legitimize their arguments that Socrates is no longer on the forefront of their minds. For this reason alone, I believe his arguments are pure genius. He covers all aspects of the question, and promptly diverts the argument in his favor. Essentially, he covers all aspects of a good. argument
Reply
Lauren Errichiello
9/26/2010 01:02:26 pm
One person I really have to agree with is Lexi. Socrates shows the citizens of Athens that they are harming themselves by putting him on trial; it is their loss if he is sentenced, not his. Socrates uses logic and reasoning to show each charge against him was inaccurate, and therefore could not be used against him. Socrates has several charges brought against him. He is accused of not recognizing the gods that are recognized by the state, inventing new deities, and corrupting the youth in the state of Athens. First off, the first two charges coincide with each other and ultimately contradict one another. An atheist would not create new deities but also not believe in gods. Thus, Socrates is able to prove that the charges brought against him are false. This is an admirable quality that Socrates uses; his ability to argue his case until he discovers a flaw in the opponent’s case against him. When considering the third charge, one must look at the fact that it is an opinion. Some might say he used corruption, while others may say he just spoke his ideas. As for my opinion, I do believe Socrates did not corrupt the youth in Athens. The youth believed in his ideas and were willing to follow his philosophies. Socrates did not corrupt the children, he just taught them his philosophies and they chose to act on them. He did not force them to take up his teachings, nor did he force them to live life as he did. One last important speech Socrates uses in court states that he does not fear death; therefore they can sentence him to death. He claims he is smarter than everyone else because at least he knows he does not know everything, so he cannot fear death because he does not know everything about it. This final argument shows Socrates does not want to clear his name. If he were to clear his name, then it would contradict what he said; it would show he was fearful of death, and therefore not as wise as he claimed.
Reply
Tyler Oranger
9/26/2010 03:23:23 pm
I like Amy AND Ava thought Socrates came off as a little to self-centered in the egotism of his argument. Then I came to realize that there was an element of nobility within his arrogance that actually helps in his defense. Socrates claims to have been “chosen by the gods” as a benefactor to society. While he respects the jury’s authority, he follows the authority of god as a much higher priority. He strongly stands by his philosophy because he believes it to be “Gods will”.... Now wait a minute, wasn’t one of the charges against him atheism? It doesn’t really make sense for an atheist to be following the will of God. As for his stubbornness towards his fate in the hands of the court, if he was willing to die for what he stood by, then he must have whole heartedly believed in what he was doing.
Reply
Chris Hansen
9/30/2010 12:10:55 am
Socrates is not trying to get his name aquitted because he is going straight by the process of the criminal justice syste and stating that he knows nothing, which in turn is making the judges and court out to be the wrong ones. Socrates really commited no crime according to his standards and did not show hostility to being charged, showing the justice system that they were unfair.
Reply
10/1/2013 10:12:27 am
Singleness of purpose is one of the chief essentials for success in life, no matter what may be one's aim.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Humanities
|