Written by Plato, the famous philosopher, Meno is the title of a dialogue between two characters, Meno and Socrates. Virtue is the subject matter of the conversation. Meno begins the talk by posing a question to Socrates of whether a virtue can be acquired. This is not the only question Meno asks but in all the cases, he fails to begin by defining the basis of his questions. For instance, he cannot begin by addressing the key term, virtue. This is what Socrates wants to know first and in turn, he poses the question back to Meno. This, among other reasons, explains why Socrates does not respond directly to Menos question about how virtue is acquired.
Why?
Commencing the conversation with a general, rather than a specific question induces nervousness to Socrates. Any standard person in such a situation can be interested in knowing why the question is open and not specific. It can be mistaken for a trick of capturing the mind of a person. Socrates is concerned with the idea behind the question. That Meno does not explain his motives preceding it makes Socrates return it to him. Socrates now becomes the interviewer and not the reverse.
Their difference forces Socrates to suggest that they address the issue of virtue but differently from how Meno wants it. He dances into this tune. He claims that a virtue is a variable that relies much on gender, age, literacy, among other factors. Citing an example of men, who ought to lead their families providing the basic requirements and women taking care of the head and the children, Socrates rejects it. He posits that there should be a virtue portrayed by all people regardless of the aforementioned factors. The question goes back to Meno when he is required to identify this virtue. It is noticeable that Socrates does not suggest a comment on whether Menos claims were true.
Socrates rejection of the notion that virtues are dependent variables tempts Meno to conclude that all people possess similar virtues. He provides the illustration of their capacity to lead claiming that this prevails among all people no matter their differences. Socrates views it as too general saying that it is not leading that matters but the way it is done. He throws the question back demanding to know whether leading well is common in relation to captives and the liberated people. He declares him as one led by many instead of one, or else too open rather than specific which is his area of interest.
Sticking to the subject of virtue, Meno introduces a third party, Gorgias, though not live in the discussion, which is conversant with the field of virtues. He demands to know from Socrates how Gorgias treated a virtue. Socrates claims to have forgotten but when he asks him whether he knew it, Meno said he did, only for Socrates to order him to exclude Gorgias from the discussion and provide him with the meaning of a virtue from Gorgias point of view.
Conclusion
The fact that Socrates knows all the answers to Menos questions stands out clear throughout the dialogue. The questions asked are too general from Socrates point of view. Though dead, Platos lesson is still alive, holding that people ought to be specific rather than broad when handling their issues. This provides the reason why Socrates fails to respond directly to Menos questions.
One of the great disciples of Socrates, in Athens was Plato, he articulates the Athenian jury system and reveals the inadequacy of the arbitration. Whenever in ancient or modern period obedience of authority is a significant substance. While his defense Socrates says that let the event be as God wills: in obedience to the law I make my defense (Plato). The great philosopher Socrates, about twenty-four centuries ago recognized the truth that obedience is a major element to express his censure of the wrong jurisdiction and accusers. In his defense, Socrates stated his arguments to prove that he led the Athenian citizens on the way of wisdom, not atheism. Socrates teaches us that obedience is the recognition of the social system without it one can not succeed in his intention. He had the opportunity to save his life but Socrates enquired the answer to his questions. Accusers charged him as an atheist against Athenian gods at the same time; his questions were influential towards the youths. His words and opinions argued that authority continues old believes and those are orthodox.
Another important lesson given by Socrates is that wisdom is not living with philosophers it lies in the experience of human beings. Socrates recognizes that his teachings were an attempt towards an eternal truth so he presents wisdom before the jury and the citizens of Athens. Socrates tells that he speaks the words of paranormal power so he is not able to explain it. Plato reveals in his commentary as Socrates words that, I am not angry with my accusers, or my condemners; they have done me no harm, although neither of them meant to do me any good; and for this, I may gently blame them (Plato). He recognized as he is a wise man but inform the presence of the existing truth. The accusers charged Socrates as the teacher of atheism because according to them his words about the strange knowledge. Generally, the words of Socrates could not understand by his contemporary jurists because of his ironical explanations.
Socrates employs psychological approach to the success of his stand and proved it is the better element to criticize accusers. He never was a disobedient before the jury and be familiar with their authority. All the arguments of Socrates are blended with this obedience that discloses his intellectual status. Defense also exploited by the Socrates for the experiment, so that is considered as a different Milgram experiment before the authority. He often obediently addresses as my judges for the jury members while his strong argument against the accusers. Thus Apology of Plato is presents a mock-up Milgram experiment through the words of his master. The physical presence of an authority figure dramatically increased compliance (Cherry). This level of authority brings the obedience from the part of the accused but Socrates maintains respect towards anything he experienced. Socrates had the knowledge about the value of obedience, wisdom, and truth. For him good concepts are eternal things with no permanent danger. He really believed that his teachings and defense is the mission of the spirit or god. Moreover he wished to become a martyr in order to secure his ideals and believes. Accordingly, after found guilty Socrates had no feelings against accusers and jurists.
The dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro in front of the King Archons court reveals two individuals at crossroads on how to define and comprehend holiness. The two were to attend court hearings on different cases. During their discussion, they reveal to each other reasons why they are to appear in court.
According to Burrington (n.d.), Socrates was to attend a court hearing in which Meletus accuses him of distracting the attention of young people from believing in the gods that the state religion recognizes. Instead, Socrates was propagating for the belief in new gods. On the other hand, Euthyphro was at the court to file a case against his father, who, he argues, has made his family and friends be unkind to him.
The father had isolated a servant, who killed a family slave, in a ditch to prevent religious pollution. Later, the servant died even before the messenger could report on what religious steps could be taken against the servant. Euthyphro explains that it is wrong, in line with his accepted beliefs, to protect a manslayer.
In addition, he says that his actions would prevent poisoning his fathers associates. According to Socrates, it is a taboo to lodge harmful proceedings against ones father. This different points of view or different reasoning perspectives prompted the two to discuss in depth the concept of holiness or piety.
Notably, Socrates wanted to understand the interpretation of the term holiness from other peoples standpoint. This step could help him in defending himself at the court (God, 2009). Socrates wanted to gage whether his action of preaching to the youths to accept foreign gods could be viewed as holy or not. Additionally, he wanted to know whether his act was appeasing or annoying all the gods and whether it was right or wrong.
The concept of holiness also took prominent position, as Socrates wanted Euthyphro to evaluate his decision of arraigning his father in court. In the dialogue, Socrates aimed at making Euthyphro back his actions with solid premises, which are religious.
According to Socrates, many people have confused religious actions that are wrong or right, as they argue from archaic religious contextual. Remarkably, these two characters were faced by cases, which required deep philosophical explanations and comprehension.
Socrates requested Euthyphro to define what is meant by piety. In his first response, Euthyphro defended his religious actions by alluding that even Zeus punished his father the same way. Socrates refuted this response by saying that, though it can be genuine, but the exemplification cannot be part of the definition.
Therefore, Euthyphro needs to understand the difference between what he considers religious and what he considers moral. Further, Socrates adds that he had difficulties in comprehending how misunderstanding arises among the gods. In the second definition, Euthyphro suggested that pious is what pleases the gods (God, 2009).
Socrates responded by indicating that what is appealing to one god could be unappealing to another god. Euthyphro felt frustrated and lastly defined piety as that which pleases all the gods. This definition prompted Socrates to ask Euthyphro a query, Is what is pious loved by (all) the gods because it is already pious, or is it pious merely because it is something loved by them? (Burrington, n.d.).
At this point, the two agree with the partial definition and go ahead to formulate schemas, that is something is considered pious if it is already holy in its own before gods love it. These steps qualify the holiness of any act. Socrates added that what attracts the gods to love any pious act is its being morally right. Afterwards, they engage in explaining what actions one can accept as morally right.
Euthyphro argues that our moral actions involve helping our gods by protecting our people through offering sacrifices and prayers. Socrates then wonders why we ask the gods for things and offer them to the same gods as sacrifice.
Socratess objective in this dialogue was to show Euthyphro that there are different perspectives of viewing or understanding a concept, rather than having a fixated conception on an idea. Therefore, he wanted to understand the religious experts argument and widen his points of argument. This was Socratess intention because he assumed the role of a student or learner in the dialogue.
From this scenario, Euthyphro was fully able to give his understanding of piety and morality. Notably, in the dialogue Socrates played a passive role, as he could allow Euthyphro to respond to his questions, then offers suggestions to provoke further response from Euthyphro. Moreover, there is no point at which Euthyphro asked Socrates questions.
In my opinion, holiness refers to a state or an act that is morally right in itself and that the gods love. The definition fails to give the level or point at which an act qualifies to be morally right. Additionally, who qualifies an act as morally upright?
Is it not the people? Is what is morally right loved by gods to make it morally right? On the other hand, is it morally right because people have accepted it to be so? There are individual differences in peoples arguments, cultures, perceptions, and understanding.
References
Burrington, D. E. (n.d.). Guides to the Socratic Dialogues: Platos Euthyphro. Hartwick College. Web.
God, F. (2009, April 23). Socrates versus Euthyphro. No Double Standards. Web.
Socrates is one of the greatest philosophers known in the modern history whose work impacted on various areas of knowledge, from metaphysics, to philosophy, and even religion. Scholars have considered him one of the founding fathers of the abstract reasoning in the modern world. The works of this great philosopher is well documented in the works of Plato, who was one of his best students.
Klein (1989) says, Platos dialogues are among the most comprehensive accounts of Socrates to survive from antiquity. Plato compiled this information in the form of dialogue to bring out the information in its most authentic form. Plato believed that presenting the teachings in the form of dialogues was the best way of documenting the teachings of Socrates for the benefit of the future generations.
The teachings of Socrates to Plato closely relates to the modern day classroom teaching and learning. An analysis of Socrates-Theaetetus dialogue and other dialogues with Meno, Lysis, and Phaedrus reveals that Socrates teachings were full of satire, dialogue, and rhetorical questions. These three factors formed the basis of his teachings as a way of evoking abstract reasoning from his students.
It also helped in developing a philosophical reasoning among the learners. Socrates had the capacity of making words that appear simple in meaning become ambiguous philosophically. This approach of teaching forms the basis of the modern day classroom teaching and learning. This research paper is a reflection on the Socrates-Theaetetus dialogue and hot it relates to the modern day classroom teaching and learning.
Discussion
Socrates great teachings and philosophies are presented in the works of Plato. Waterfield (2005) says, Through his portrayal in Platos dialogues, Socrates has become renowned for his contribution to the field of ethics, and it is this Platonic Socrates who lends his name to the concepts of Socratic irony and the Socratic Method, or elenchus.
The Platonic Socrates, as presented in the Socratic dialogues, clearly demonstrates that Plato had a massive impact on the modern day teaching environment. Plato authored thirty-six Socratic dialogues and about 13 letters to present the works of this great philosopher. In this research paper, a few of these dialogues will be analyzed in order to determine how they relate to the modern day classroom teaching and learning.
Theaetetus Dialogue and How it Relates to Modern Day Classroom Teaching and Learning
In Platos Socratic dialogues, Theaetetus was one of the best students of Socrates. In this dialogue, Socrates is discussing three main definitions of knowledge with Theaetetus. As Klein (1989) records, this dialogue defines knowledge as Nothing but perception, knowledge as a true judgment, and, finally, knowledge as a true judgment with an account.
This scholar observes that this dialogue occurred when Theaetetus was a young scholar who was interested in learning abstract reasoning. Socrates introduced the word knowledge which Theaetetus thought was a simple word. He had used the word severally and he wondered why the Great Teacher introduced the word as a focal point of discussion.
His parents sent him to school in order to become knowledgeable. His teachers worked hard to impart knowledge in him. For this reason, the word knowledge was a common term that formed the basis of learning.
However, when Socrates gave him an opportunity to define knowledge, he found it very challenging as he could not find the exact definition that befits this word from a philosophical point of view. It is at this stage that Socrates gave three perspectives through which, knowledge can be defined.
Knowledge as nothing but perception
Socrates dialogue with Theaetetus first focused on knowledge as a perception of an individual or a group of people towards what they view as knowledge. Using Heracliteanism, Socrates says that what an individual would describe as nothing would mean everything to another individual. For this reason, what one person or a group of people may classify as knowledge may be very different from what another group thinks.
For this reason, knowledge would basically be defined according to an individuals perception. The way we perceive things in the society is very different based on the social background and other demographical factors. Socrates believed that it would be unfair for him to use a common bar to rigidly define knowledge because a section of the society may not agree with the definition.
This definition of knowledge given by Socrates closely relates to the modern day teaching and learning. According to Waterfield, (2005), knowledge in the modern learning environment entails sitting in a classroom setting, receiving the information that is given by the teacher, internalizing it in order to become knowledgeable.
However, this is what Socrates defined as a rigid definition of knowledge that may not be universally accepted. Sometimes knowledge may be gained out of experience, without having a teacher-learner setting.
Knowledge as true judgment
In this dialogue, Socrates and Theaetetus argue about true knowledge and true judgment. According to Theaetetus, true judgment is always based on true knowledge. However, Socrates disputes this idea. He explains that there are cases when the jury would be persuaded by the lawyer about a case using untrue lawyer.
However, the lawyer will present the false knowledge in a way that would convince the jury that it is the true knowledge. For this reason, the jury will make true judgment based on untrue knowledge.
This means that while the jury would be made to think that they are making a fair judgment based on the information presented, they will actually be sending an innocent person to jail, or freeing the guilty person unfairly. For this reason, Socrates insisted that true knowledge and true judgment are very different, and should be treated as such.
This philosophical reasoning is very common in the modern day classroom teaching and learning, especially in the field of law. According to Waterfield (2005), courts are considered institutions of justice. When resolving conflicts in court, it is always expected that the true judgment will be based on true knowledge. However, this is not always the case, and that is why people always look for good lawyers.
As a law student, this dialogue demonstrates that it is important to present information to the court in a manner that would convince everyone that it is the true knowledge. This way, the jury would make a favorable decision believing that it is the true judgment.
Knowledge as a true judgment with an account
Socrates finally settles on what he believes is the definition of a true knowledge in his dialogue with Theaetetus. According to Klein (1989), Socrates says, Things without an account are unknowable, while things with an account are knowable.
After analyzing the two definitions, their dialogue finally settles on the definition that emphasizes on accounts to back up the knowledge. He insists that the difference between knowable and unknowable is defined by the account. It helps substantiate the knowledge in a manner that is convincing to the audience.
In the modern day learning environment, a learner must understand that the society needs an account to support a claim or a definition of something, especially in a court of law.
Waterfield, (2005) says, The principles of definition, the law of contradiction, the fallacy of arguing in a circle, the distinction between the essence and accidents of a thing or notion, between means and ends, between causes and conditions depends on the account. For this reason, any piece of knowledge must be backed up by some strong foundations of the account in order for it to be valid.
Dialogues with Meno
The dialogue between Socrates and Meno focuses on the meaning of virtue. According to Meno, virtue would be defined differently based on the individual on focus. According to Waterfield (2005), Meno says, Every age, every condition of life, young or old, male or female, bond or free, has a different virtue. According to Meno, the virtues of a woman would be different from that of a man.
Similarly, the virtues of a slave would be different from that of a master. However, Socrates disagrees with this reasoning. He argues that a virtue should mean the same thing when talking about a human being irrespective of any demographical classification.
As Waterfield (2005) notes, he asks Meno, And will not virtue, as virtue, be the same, whether in a child or in a grown-up person, in a woman or in a man? Socrates disputes the attempt by Meno to define a virtue differently based on different personalities. Doing what is good is a universal practice that cannot be defined by age, sex, race, or any other demographical factors.
Socrates uses satire and rhetorical questions to drive his point. He says that a crime committed by a person would remain a crime before a court of law irrespective of all these demographical factors, and the judgment may likely be the same, only that a child would be sent to a juvenile court. The dialogue with Meno compares closely with the dialogue with Theaetetus in the figurative of the speech and the use of rhetoric.
Another common factor is that the dialogues seeks to emphasize on need to develop an analytical reasoning when defining some of the terms considered common in the society.
The two dialogues also focus on the perception, and it is clear that Socrates feel that the perception of people towards different things in the society will always differ, and this is always the genesis of conflicts. Unless people accept to base their perceptions on a factual account, the conflicts in the society may not be easily resolved.
Dialogues with Lysis
The dialogue with Lysis focused on friendship, a common term that is often used to define the relationship between people close to one another. This dialogue involves Socrates and two young boys named Lysis and Menexenus. The two boys wanted Socrates to tell them what the true meaning of friendship is, and how they can detect a true friend from opportunistic individuals who would easily disappear when one is in trouble.
Socrates challenges the two boys to explain what they feel friendship is because they already had friends (Waterfield, 2005). Given the ambiguity of the definition of friendship given by the two boys, Socrates proposes four notions of true friendship, each with specific principles that makes it necessary to be defined as such.
He then emphasizes on the need to understand the drive that brings two or more individuals into a relationship that can be defined as friendship. According to Socrates, when the friendship is motivated by the pure personal desires by either or all of the parties, then it may not be classified as a true friendship.
This dialogue, just as that with Theaetetus, reveals that before making a judgment, it is important to determine the motive that drives someone to act. Sometimes people fail to understand the motives that make others behave in a particular manner, and this makes it difficult to unearth the truth.
Dialogues with Phaedrus
The dialogue between Socrates and Phaedrus focuses on love, the art of rhetoric, and the figurative speech. In this speech, Socrates and Phaedrus try to discuss issues about emotion and the divine world. Their discussion focuses on divine inspiration, soul, madness, and mastery of art. This dialogue uses rhetoric to define issues related to feelings.
Socrates asks Phaedrus to define madness. Phaedrus says that one would be considered mad if he or she does something that is abnormal. Socrates then asks him to define what he means by abnormal. The definition of abnormality given by Phaedrus is unsatisfactory to Socrates. He says that what one may describe as abnormal in one context may be very normal in another context.
It means that madness as a definition of a persons character may fit in different contexts. Similarly, the word love may not be easy to define in clear terms because what one may consider love may be defined by factors such as desire.
Werner (2012) says, Let me not to the marriage of true minds admit impediments, love is not love which alters when it alteration finds. This seeks to affirm that love is firm enough to withstand various forces that may act against it. This dialogue shares philosophical reasoning with that between Socrates and Theaetetus. The use of rhetoric is common in both cases.
Dialogues with Protagoras
The dialogue between Socrates and Protagoras is one of the popular Platonic dialogues that talks about virtue. Protagoras argues that virtue is a series of personal attributes which define the character of a person. With his rhetoric skills and his old age, Protagoras seem to be able to convince the audience that a virtue involves a number of attributes that act in different ways to define the character of a person (Zilioli, 2007).
However, Socrates believes that virtue is knowledge, and for this reason, cannot be defined as a series of attributes. It is knowledge to do what is right, and to avoid actions that may be harmful to others. It is a knowledge that helps one to know how to act in the best interest of everyone. Just like the dialogue with Theaetetus, this dialogue emphasizes on knowing what is right and doing it for the benefit of everyone.
References
Klein, J. (1989). A commentary on Platos Meno. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Waterfield, R. (2005). Meno and other dialogues. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Werner, D. S. (2012). Myth and philosophy in Platos Phaedrus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zilioli, U. (2007). Protagoras and the challenge of relativism: Platos subtlest enemy. Aldershot, England: Ashgate Publishers.
Philosophy is an ancient field of study that entails systematic study of knowledge, nature, existence, reality, mind, and reason through logical and rational arguments. Philosophers use logical and rational arguments when explaining their perception of life and their existence. For centuries, humans have been accumulating knowledge about their existence in a bid to understand the nature of life.
In Athens, Socrates was the most prominent philosopher who examined the lives of Athenians and found that they were groping in the darkness of ignorance since they did not understand their existence. Thus, Socrates argued that unexamined life is not worth living after observing the how the Athenians lived.
As he tried to enlighten the people, Athenians leaders observed that Socrates was spoiling the minds of the youths, and thus guilty of using his philosophies inappropriately. Hence, this essay argues that Athenian leaders put Socrates and his philosophy on trial, for they did not like to examine and assess their lives using philosophy.
Unexamined Life
Socrates was an Athenian philosopher who made a significant contribution to the development of the Western philosophy. Although Socrates was one of the wisest men in Athens, he considered himself as ignorant. He argued that gaining wisdom only begins when one understands own ignorance as it forms the basis of knowledge.
During his life, Socrates observed that Athenians lived miserable lives since they could not understand the essence of life. Thus, Socrates decided to examine the lives of the Athenians and teach the youths on how to attain better lives as he envisioned.
According to Socrates, unexamined life is not worth living because people are groping in the dark, and thus unable to attain real meaning of life or live worthy lives. Therefore, Socrates talked to Athenians while examining their lives and teaching youths on how to gain wisdom and live worthy lives.
Socrates used the Allegory of the Cave to describe how Athenians are groping in the darkness without hope of attaining real meaning of life. In the allegory, Socrates argues that Athenians are seeing illusions in life and taking them as reality, just as prisoners in the cave assumed that shadows are real people walking across the wall.
The prisoners in the cave have accustomed to the shadows until they could not differentiate reality and illusions. In this view, Socrates asserts that philosophers like him are among people who have come out of the cave and are able to differentiate reality and illusions. Hence, the work of Socrates was to enlighten the Athenians so that they can transform their understanding of life from cave illusions to the reality in the world.
Although Socrates tried to enlighten the youths, Athenian leaders had a different perception. The Athenian leaders perceived that Socrates was spoiling the minds of the youths with philosophical doctrines that are against laws and regulations of the Athenian empire. In essence, what Socrates did was to examine the lives of the Athenians in a bid to enhance their understanding of life and resolution of issues affecting their lives.
Despite Socrates important role in enlightening the youth, the Athenian leaders charged Socrates and dismissed his philosophy as destructive. In response, Socrates protested that the jury did set the penalty very high that he could not afford to pay, and thus putting him and his philosophy on trial. Despite his plea and protest, the jury still sentenced Socrates to death.
In the course of examining the lives of the Athenians, Socrates also questioned the existence of the piety. Socrates analyzed Euthyphro concept and asserted that the gods love pious things and hate impious things. In his argument about piety, Socrates came up with the Euthyphro dilemma since he wondered whether the gods loves pious things or the gods make things pious by loving them.
Socrates believed that things are pious on their own and independent of the gods. Hence, piety is an inherent attribute of things and not gods. The Euthyphro dilemma attracted massive criticisms from Athenians because it touched on a sensitive matter about the Athenian gods and their deity roles.
If god cannot make anything pious, it means they have no ability to transform the lives of people from impiety to piety. Such dilemma made the Athenians charge Socrates for introducing new doctrines that are against their gods. Hence, Athenians accused Socrates of introducing foreign gods while relegating Athenian gods.
Conclusion
Socrates was a noble philosopher who examined the lives of the Athenians and realized that they were ignorant about life. According his assessment, Socrates argued that unexamined life is not worth living because people grope while searching for the real meaning of life.
Despite the fact that Socrates examined the lives of youths and taught them, Athenian leaders accused him of corrupting their minds while introducing foreign gods. Eventually, the jury sentenced Socrates to death for alleged destructive teachings and impious philosophy. Thus, the Athenians put Socrates and his philosophy on trial when they sentenced him to death and rejected his philosophy as destructive.
Socrates taught that a life that is governed by the rules and dictations of others, oblivious of the need for self-examination and evaluation is not worth living. He believed that a valuable life is one in which the individual strives for self-knowledge, wisdom, and a deeper understating of the self (Hoffpauir, 2020). A failure to question ones actions and the way the world works results in irrational behaviors and the inability to distinguish good from bad (Hoffpauir, 2020). This view is controversial, with many philosophers providing opposing views. One group supports the argument that an unexamined life is worthless while the other criticizes and downplays the importance of superfluous examination of ones life. Socrates argument is not successful because a life of rigorous examination is not fit for every individual, and mainly because happiness in life originates from a myriad of factors. Therefore, his argument is unreasonable, flawed, and wrong, even though it has a degree of truth to it. Factors such as good health, family, gratitude, and values such as kindness and generosity make life worth living, even though it is not examined. Socrates belief that the lack of constant examination and evaluation of ones life makes it worthless has little merit because it downplays the importance of many other factors that are the ingredients of a happy and fulfilling life. An acceptance of Socrates view would change my life a bit because it would introduce a dimension that would involve evaluating personal choices, behaviors, attitudes, and thoughts to determine which are beneficial and which are detrimental. However, it would lead to a self-entanglement that would be difficult to abdicate because of the development of the habit of overthinking. Moreover, it would encourage obliviousness to other factors that give life value. Contemplation should be conducted frequently, and not as rigorous as Socrates recommends.
Reference
Hoffpauir, J. M. (2020). Between Socrates and the many: A study of Platos Crito. Lexington Books.
Socrates was accused of several crimes, and the first offense was that he did not practice the religion accepted by his city (Chroust, 14). The second offense was that Socrates preached an alternate history of a divine being (Chroust, 14). He argues that if one does not recognize some gods, but believes in others, then that individual cannot be considered an atheist because it is contrary to his atheistic nature (Chroust, 16). This is also the most convincing argument in Socratess speech, for atheism is total disbelief in any deity from the point of view of religion (Oppy, 2019). Socrates is a representative of another denomination but not an atheist (Oppy, 2019).
Socrates repeatedly mentions the Gods, whose existence he acknowledges (Chroust, 17, 73, 76, 98, 139, 112, 128). Then Socrates thought that men of genius were actual, but the ancient Greek opinion was that geniuses were the children of the gods (Chroust, 17). From this logical chain, Socrates comes to the contradiction in the charge that he who believes in the children of the Gods cannot believe in the Most Highs themselves (Chroust, 17). At the same time, those who deny the existence of any Supreme force are considered atheists, and, accordingly, the philosopher does not fit under this criterion (Oppy, 2019). Another accusation of Socrates was that of corrupting the young (Chroust, 16). The philosopher notes that it is not fair to accuse him of such behavior because every adult living in a city influences the minds of young people (Chroust, 16).
Consequently, every inhabitant corrupts the minds of young people (Chroust, 16). Socrates ideas about truth and the assertion that the wisest of all men know nothing consisted of the fact that searching for truth in any dialogue or study is a difficult path (Plato, 2020). Socrates regarded as an error a dialogue in which one side takes the knowing position. Socrates primary method was to encourage one that only an ignoramus is so stupid that he cannot even understand that he knows nothing (Plato, 2020). The philosopher concludes in his work that truth is an objective, immaterial and eternal entity that exists in the divine (Xenophon & Denyer, 2019).
Likewise, the philosopher admits that only an understanding of ones ignorance is wisdom, which is the answer to the riddle of the oracle to which Socrates goes. During the trial, Socrates refers to the truth while talking about the corruption of youth, believing that the truth is that all citizens corrupt the younger generation but do not even realize it (Chroust, 76). Also, Socrates says that the trial itself is a discussion of abstract crimes, not a search for truth, since the accusers are engaged in things they do not know. (Chroust, 101).
References
Chroust, A. (2018). Socrates, man and muth. The two Socratic apologies of Xenophon. Taylor & Francis.
Plato. (2020). The essential Plato. Apology, Symposium and The republic. Open Road Media.
Oppy, G. (2019). A companion to atheism and philosophy. Wiley.
Xenophon, Denyer, N. (2019). Plato: The apology of Socrates and Xenophon: The apology of Socrates. Cambridge University Press.
Socrates believed that philosophy had a critical role in the lives of each individual. Philosophy was the driving factor behind how each person lived and their soul. One of his famous words was, the unexamined life is not worth living (Burnet 153). The philosopher greatly argued for self-awareness and knowing oneself, and in the process of self-knowledge, discovering the true nature of who one is and ones identity, once we know ourselves, we may learn how to care for ourselves (Burnet 158).
Socrates was known to question much of everything, especially the beliefs and principles of Athenian society at the time. He believed that one true self is the soul, not associated with social status, body, and riches. The soul, before Christianity, was seen as an inner being that defined each human being. Socrates believed that self-knowledge is recognizing the soul and learning to cultivate good in it while eliminating evil. In the end, happiness was the natural and desired end to life, and to achieve it, a person must attain the wisdom of what is good and what is evil and live their life accordingly to care for ones soul (Burnet 146).
Eventually, the government of Athens was dissatisfied with Socrates teachings and growing following and put him on trial for asebeia against the pantheon of Athens and corruption of Athenian youth. Socrates presents his view of wisdom and the virtual as elements of moral truths, which defied the Athenian multi-god religion and social order, placing priests and judges at the top of the ladder. Socrates argued that he does in the will of the one god and to either acquit me or not; but whatever you do, know that I shall never alter my ways, not even if I have to die many times (Burnet 224).
As for corrupting the youth, Socrates argued that many supposedly corrupted have reached maturity and were present at the trial, testifying that no such thing occurred, and they became loyal friends and supporters. Eventually, Socrates was found guilty and chose to drink poison surrounded by supporters than face the same public punishment.
Work Cited
Burnet, John (editor). Platos Euthphro, Apology of Socrates and Cryto. Oxford at the Clarendon Press, 1977.
Socrates did not present his arguments in writing. His arguments were presented by his learners. These learners included Plato, Xenophon, Aristotle, and Aristophanes. Socrates did not value themselves as the perfect human beings. Plato provides relevant details concerning the philosophy and life of Socrates. Socrates thinking can be attributed to Cartesian doubt, a philosophy linked with the works of Descartes. Cartesian doubt is a form of reasoning that eliminates all uncertain things with the aim of deriving meaning.
The life of Socrates is explained in the conversation between Plato and Xenophon and also in theater performances of Aristophanes. From Platos perspective, Socrates was the child of Sophroniscus and Phaenarete. Socrates was not considered to be handsome because of his height and ugly face. However, he married Xanthippe who was younger than him and later on they were blessed with three sons namely Lamprocles, Menexenus and Sophroniscus.
Some sources such as Timon of Philius explain that Socrates was a mason whereas others argue he used to collect his revenue from his learners. Plato also argues that Socrates was a soldier in Athens.
Additionally, Socrates is perceived to be the artist who designed the statue of the three graces in Acropolis; hence his source of income is confusing. Socrates was determined to analyze the people who were regarded by the residents of Athens city as the most updated fellows. He found them to be way behind to be accorded such a status in the society.
Socratic Method is accredited to a popular Greek philosopher known as Socrates. It employs the use of questions and answers format. The persons involved in this dialogue have different opinions and therefore opt to ask each other queries that may enhance their critical thinking. The Cartesian doubt is relevant in this approach because, in critical thinking, all things that are in doubt can be disproved.
Socrates encouraged the use of human reasoning, and it is this tough perspective that ignited people who were opposed to his opinion to have him eliminated. The people who killed him were threatened by his doctrines because they felt he could open the minds of the people of Athens and thereby end their dominance on decision making in Athens.
Philosophers who were inquisitive like Socrates are subjected to executions because their questions do not go down well with most governments. Socrates method identifies facts that frame peoples thinking and creates questions that analyze the conformity of these facts to other ideas.
Socrates involved other residents of Athens in brainstorming sessions after an old friend toured the oracle of Delphi and proved that Socrates was the sole individual with extreme understanding. Socrates experience in critical thinking is owed to his negligence. He explains to his subjects that though they see him as the most experienced person his real life does not imply so.
Socrates negligence assisted him to correct his mistakes, unlike others who thought they were always correct. His queries left intellectuals confused. For instance, he argued that riches do not attract gentleness, but rather gentleness attracts riches to a person and the country. He also explains that a life without evaluation is meaningless.
Socratic Method is mostly applied in institutions of law such as the school of law. The educators in this sector query their students without a proper sequence of asking questions with the aim of demonstrating their knowledge in the subject at hand.
More queries are used to enhance the students understanding and they require the student to support his answer until the educator has exhausted his queries. These queries can be used to analyze the previous answers given by a learner. This in return makes the student to acquire skills in thinking and eliminate uncertainty through Cartesian doubt.
This model was influenced by Socrates belief that there are more outcomes in one query hence the need to identify other possible outcomes. By doing this the students of law were expected to have an upper hand in their profession because they did not need to memorize possible queries and results. If this method is applied in a typical court preceding it can justify the magistrates or the judges verdict is enhanced by his conscience.
A focus on Socrates philosophy indicates that his thoughts were always in conflict with those of his states men. For instance, during the court proceedings where he was accused of impairing the thinking capacity of the youth of Athens, he told the panel of judges that their concerns were centered on worldly things rather than securing their souls. His remarks attracted fowl reactions.
Socrates also mentioned that the qualities of prominent people of Athens were not reflected in their sons. To further support his argument, he evaluated the qualities of military generals against those of their sons and found them to be incompatible.
Socrates reckons that he is not the master mind but explains that he acquired his skills in critical thinking from his trainers. He also acknowledges the contributions of the two women in his life that molded him into who he is. Most principles of Socrates have been declared as a paradox because they contradict common sense.
The first principle of these paradoxes argues that there is no person who wishes to do evil. The next one explains that no one does a mistake that offends himself or others with his knowledge. This means that those people who offend others never plan to do so but the mistake happens by default. This argument can be referred by criminals who are accused of violating the rights of other people to justify their actions.
The above mentioned paradox is widely disputed because all human beings are expected to exercise self control since every one is responsible for his actions hence all humans are treated as independent entities.
Socrates argued that wrong doing or mistakes were results of unawareness. He did not declare himself as the most updated person but he was quick to illustrate his strong feelings towards knowledge and accepts these strong feelings as the driving force behind his devotion to knowledge. He also compared human ignorance to awareness (Vernon).
Socrates argued that life would be better if only humans gave the first priority to personal contentment rather than worldly things. He encouraged others to engage in responsible relationships with their fellows as this was the only way a community would advance. His arguments were parallel to his lifestyle because when he was sentenced to death he chose to accept it to display his devotion to society.
Socrates emphasized on the importance of human morals. He expressed responsible morals as the most relevant elements of human life and can not be compared to material things.
Socrates argued that only a human being with extreme awareness was appropriate to rule others. He was not pleased by the then democracy of Athens. He suggested that only the philosophers can form a proper government. He was not only disappointed by the government of Athens but also those of other states that did not match to his argument.
The above arguments encouraged the students of Socrates to seek government positions and thus the democracy of Athens was forcefully removed from power by the thirty tyrants who included relatives of Socrates. These same students took charge of the government. However, their authority only lasted one year because the democracy was restored.
The thirty tyrants did not satisfy the expectations of Socrates hence the leadership of the thirty tyrants was perceived to be worse than democracy according to Socrates. The Socrates seemed to encourage spirituality. Socrates argued that awareness is enhanced by memory because if one can relate with previous events its only then he can be declared to be wise. The Socrates is highly appreciated for his role in promoting education. Thus, with Cartesian doubt, people can be able to shape their thinking with the aim of improving knowledge.
Work Cited
Vernon, M. Socrates and the Power of doubt. 2009. Web.
Socrates states that life, which has not been properly examined, is wrongful and even unworthy of living. This may sound quite controversial, but the philosopher provides strong arguments to support his idea. He argues that a wise man has to examine the life of others and especially his own life. According to the philosopher, it is important to understand whether people live rightful lives and share their views to make wrongdoers change their ways.
Only this can help create the society of rightful people who live in accordance with laws of morality. The philosopher stresses that a righteous man has to be able to administer the society (state, community, family) and contribute to its development while the righteous woman has to focus on her household, her children, and her husband.
Any deviations from these norms may lead to negative changes in society that may be destroyed. If the person does wrong and immoral things, he/she corrupts the world. This person does not have the right to live as his/her life undermines the perfection of the world and may corrupt others. According to Socrates, the wrongful life may break the world order that has been set and bring chaos.
Of course, it is impossible to understand whether an individual lives a rightful life without questioning each of his/her actions or statements. Without questioning peoples behavior and its outcomes, it is impossible to evaluate the impact each individual has on the development of the world. If this examination is not held, there are high chances that the person lives a wrongful life and contributes to the chaos. Of course, people should not live such lives according to the philosopher.
Socrates emphasizes the importance of looking into peoples lives carefully to trace possible errors or sins made. More so, the thinker notes that it is essential to make the wrongdoer and people around him see the immorality of certain actions to avoid the same behavior in the future. Importantly, when addressing his accusers and his friends, Socrates asks them to examine the life of his own children.
The philosopher stresses that his children have to be punished and even condemned to death if their lives are not righteous. He shows that the truth is the primary value in peoples lives, and wrongful people do not have the right to live.
Obviously, people are unprepared for such examinations as they often act immorally when pursuing their goals. Such people accused Socrates of numerous sins, but his major fault was revealing the wrongdoings of others. The philosopher was firm and never betrayed his beliefs. He chose to die rather than live without making the world better by examining the actions of people. This can also be seen as another support of his words and beliefs. He decided that his life was not worth living without telling the truth.
Socrates view on life also reveals his view on philosophy. According to the thinker, the role of philosophy is to identify major moral guidelines for people and to establish the truth. Socrates, as well as other thinkers, already had a set of virtues that had been identified by their predecessors. Thus, philosophers contemplate and consider various trends that occur in society, and they manage to see whether the changes that take place are beneficial or harmful.
Thus, examining the lives of people, philosophers are able to see the outcomes of various actions. They also check whether peoples actions follow moral rules and conventions that already exist. It is possible to state that philosophy enables people to maintain the world order that has been established. Philosophy provides a set of rules that help govern human society.
Importantly, Socrates focuses on virtues rather than the consequences of peoples actions, and he believes that laws of morality have been developed on the basis of peoples knowledge and experience. Therefore, there is no need to consider the outcomes of actions, as it is possible to check whether the action is right or wrong. Rightful/moral actions are those that lead to positive outcomes for the development of society. Hence, people should simply follow the guidelines established to make sure they live rightful lives.
In conclusion, it is possible to note that Socrates believed that immorality has to be detected and eliminated. He also argued that each life, as well as each action, has to be examined; otherwise, such a life is not worth living. The thinker stressed that people have to make sure they do the right thing in every situation, and they should also examine other peoples actions. Only this attention to actions and virtues will enable people to trace and eliminate the wrongs in human society.
Philosophy serves as the guarantee of the world order. The discipline provides major moral guidelines to be followed to maintain the existing world order. Philosophers are also seen as the guards of morals and virtues. They also interpret actions and can judge whether this or that action is rightful or not. Sometimes philosophers become victims of the society that does not want to accept the rules of morality. Socrates became one of these victims who had to die for the sake of truth.