In the formation and development of philosophy in ancient Greece, Socrates had a prominent place. The subject of his philosophical reasoning is human consciousness, the soul, and life in general, but not the cosmos and nature, as it was with his predecessors. Analyzing the issues of human existence, Socrates focused on ethics and legality in his speeches and talks; he taught the norms by which people should live in society.
Socrates raised numerous vital issues, and the dilemma of the essence of goodness and piety was one of the major ones. He questioned the formation of morality and its relation to the Gods (Wundt & Titchener, 2020). Subsequently, the question of the essence of laws and obedience to them was one of the most difficult in philosophical doctrine. In Crito, Socrates refuses to break the law when it threatens his imminent ruin. In Apologia, by contrast, he expresses a bold determination to disobey the will of the Athenians, whose power is to punish non-compliance to the law.
Socrates position seems contradictory only on the assumption that he considers the rules imposed by the Athenian legislator as the only regulation binding on him. However, the paradox disappears if one accepts that Socrates could regard the injunction to follow Athenian law as only one of the requirements of natural rules. He is convinced of the existence of a moral obligation to follow the law, rooted in the rational nature of the regulations of the City, which are founded on the rules of nature itself.
Philosopher thus fundamentally excludes the possibility of disobeying a law he considers natural and the most significant. The only question for him is which of the injunctions of natural law is more reasonable in a particular situation (Wundt & Titchener, 2020). Therefore, a man who believes that a rational soul constitutes his nature will not commit an act contrary to virtue to save his biological existence. If the City does not allow one to lead a life filled with the care of his soul, the logic should be different. No one has the right to violate the laws of nature because they are the most significant public good.
Reference
Wundt, W. M., & Titchener, E. B. (2020). Ethics: An investigation of the facts and laws of the moral life. Routledge.
Plato was of the view that Socrates was accused falsely of inciting the youths against the ruling class yet he was the righteous person in society. Socrates was a man who valued and he never did something that would amount to discrimination. He accepted to be subjected to the societal laws because he did not want controversies with his accusers. Three individuals accused Socrates of meddling in the affairs of the state, given the fact that he worshiped a different god other than the culturally accepted one. Moreover, he was accused of inciting the youths against the owners of the means of production. Each accuser had his own set of charges meaning that Socrates was tried severally. It is true that Socrates was a threat to various groups in society who never appreciated the existence of justice (Plato, 2002).
He advocated for justice, but he was against the idea behind democracy because for him, democracy was the tyranny of the multitude. Plato shared with Socrates the view that democracy was the worst form of leadership because it encouraged the rich to control the powerful sectors in a production system. By then, the thirty demo tyrants, who were supposed to offer a verdict through consensus, ruled Greece. According to Plato, democracy is the tyranny of the multitude meaning that people without experience are allowed to make major national decisions. This article looks at the charges that Meletus raised against Socrates. The article further evaluates the validity of the charges.
Charges against Socrates
Meletus was one of the three new accusers of Socrates. The old accusers never took Socrates to the courts, unlike the new ones such as Meletus, who raised a number of charges against him. Meletus accused Socrates of two major issues, including corrupting the minds of the youths and worshiping a god that was against the socially acceptable one. In Greece, the society had an established form of religion that was supposed to be obeyed by all people. Socrates summoned Meletus at the elenchus room or at the cross-examination hall to respond to his claims. Socrates wondered why he was accused of influencing the youths negatively yet his aim was to sensitize the young people embrace justice as their main principle in society. He requested Meletus to outline to him some of the positive influences in society.
Meletus responded by claiming that each individual was expected to respect the bylaw because laws remove the beast hood in an individual. In this regard, Socrates had gone against the law providing that each individual would obey the laws of the land. Every person had a responsibility of ensuring that peace and tranquillity prevails in society. For Socrates, he was against peace and stability because his statements were inflammatory and would easily encourage the youths to engage in armed conflicts with the owners of the means of production. Socrates went ahead to question Meletus on the type of the people who would have positive influence to the society. Meletus confirmed that only those who obey the law would have a prolific influence to the lives of the majority in society.
After persistent questioning, Meletus responded that the judges were in a position to determine what is good for the society. In this case, all members of the national assembly were people who had positive influence. The national assembly represented people from all quarters hence its power was valid. Moreover, members of the national assembly had a tendency of meeting at the public place, unlike Socrates who met the youths secretly to intoxicate them with his misplaced ideas. The national assembly was open to all members of society, including the youths so there would be no need of inciting the youths against it. Socrates opposed the viewpoint of Meletus by employing the horse analogy, which states that only the horse-trainer has a positive influence to the life of the horse, but not any other person. Therefore, Socrates was of the view that no person can have a positive influence to the life of another person. In this case, no individual can improve another human being in terms of civilization.
In the second charge, Meletus noted that wicked individuals should never be allowed to coexist in society because their values are in contrast to the views of the majority. He observed that wicked individuals, just like Socrates, have the power of harming other societal members, both spiritually and physically. The presence of evil individuals in society brings about untold sufferings because the gods would punish the whole society for not getting rid of the ungodly individuals. Moreover, Socrates was harming himself for not following the mainstream religion because he would accumulate curses. Socrates asserted that he would not be so idiotic to injure himself and in case any mischief came about, it would be accidental. Socrates continued to defend himself by observing that an individual who harms himself should be approached and be guided to drop the behaviour that is perceived to be dangerous. Charges should not be raised against such an individual. Punishment should not be meted out to an individual who has various problems (Scott, 2000).
Regarding the claim that he was against the state religion, Socrates defended himself by accusing Meletus of not doing adequate investigation. In fact, Meletus brought charges against Socrates mainly because of issues related to religion. To Meletus, this was one of the negative influences in society because it would encourage many youths to revolt against other state regulations. Religion played a critical role in the lives of many Greeks because it acted as a symbol of national unity. Since Socrates was unwilling to embrace the state religion, he was considered a pervert hence he was not to be allowed to coexist in society. However, this charge was invalid because Socrates noted that Meletus was confusing him with another person, who was his close friend. Meletus confused Socrates with his friend Anaxagora, who was a great supporter of Socratic ideas. Socrates went ahead to prove that he subscribed to religious ideals that are embraced in society. To him, it would be impossible to believe human issues without believing that human beings exist. Similarly, it would be impossible to believe that an equine exists without believing that there are horses. A person cannot think that artistes exist without accepting the reality that music exist (Fagan, & Russon, 2009).
Socrates went a notch higher to prove that religion is a cultural belief that differs from one individual to the other. In fact, Meletus produced an affidavit proving that Socrates believed in some form of supernatural being. He further believed that gods and their children are the only forms of supernatural beings that must be respected in society. The dialogue between Socrates and Meletus was very poor because the reasoning of the two was meagre (Tanner, 2010). Socrates was not interested in establishing the basis of Meletus reasoning, but instead he simply dismissed his views as ignorant and dishonest. Socrates seemed to bully Meletus because of his intelligence in matters related to law. He pushed Meletus to answer questions that demanded time within a short period. At times, Socrates took up questions and answered them in a way that did not support his defence. Socrates ensured that Meletus evidence was rendered useless. This would prove that Meletus did not have enough skills to prosecute Socrates. Socrates was unwilling to compromise further because the old accusers had accused him of interfering with societal order (Gray, 1998). In this piece of writing, Plato accused Meletus of contributing to Socrates death yet he was a virtuous person.
Validity of the Accusations
Socrates was one of the philosophers who sacrificed his life for the sake of justice in society because. All the charges raised against him were untrue, but he accepted to die to prove that he was a real advocate of justice. Meletus accused him falsely of inciting the youths against the owners of the means of production. Plato was one of his students and a friend. Socrates was a pious individual who advised the youths to keep off from unnecessary activities, such as engaging in bribery and political hooliganism. He wondered whether the issue of piety was even of any significance to the gods (Mcpherran, 1999). Socrates raised some of the questions that were of concern to many individuals, but no one was willing to listen to him. On the one hand, he noted that there are always gods, which love piety while on the other hand he observed that there is piety that is loved by gods. The question is whether piety influences the gods to be pious or the gods love piety simply because it is pious. In the first case, the gods love the piety because of certain unknown reasons. The reasoning of Socrates on this issue was that the gods might decide to love something without giving a reason because they are holy (Plato, & Jowett, 2011). Socrates implied in the second question that the gods are also objective or rational.
In the theological world, the reasoning of Socrates is very important because something godly is good while something ungodly is automatically bad. Something good is believed to originate from God meaning that the nature of piousness leads to the recognition of a monotheistic God, which is translated to mean Judaism, Christianity, and Islam in the modern society. In this regard, God is omnipresent and makes arbitrary decisions. This issue has generated a number of controversies in the theological world. Islam is one of the religions believing that God is omnipotent and can decide to love something without any solid reason. Therefore, the accusations raised against Socrates because he suggested that gods are pious were unacceptable. In the second question, Socrates suggested that the gods love piety because piety is moral. This means that the gods are also objective because they give a reason for loving something (Calder, 2002). In this case, Socrates meant that piety is good because it is moral. This implies that the gods give a reason for loving something, as seen in the Jewish religion.
In the political arena, the issue of whether the leader is always correct has always raised controversies. Leaders make decisions, which are sometimes unfavourable to the populace. In this regard, it is believed that gods choose leaders hence their decisions should not be questioned. To this extent, Socrates decided to die because leaders wanted him to die. Socrates accepted to die because leaders decided that he had committed a crime by siding with the youths. Socrates never incited any youth to rebel against the government because he always did the right thing. He simply taught the youths the things that would help them in life, such as morality. People should not rely on democracy, but instead they should focus on achieving justice. For anything that a leader does, he or she should consider whether justice would be achieved at the end.
In the social life, those in authority should not do things just because they are in a position to shape public opinion, but instead they should be objective in whatever they do in order to achieve justice. Democracy is the worst form of governance because it amounts to the tyranny of the multitude. Democratically elected leaders are not good leaders because they do not aim at achieving justice. They aim at fulfilling the interests of the majority who elected them. The majority are not always right because they are not the best in society. The best leaders should be chosen based on a certain criteria, such as the education system. This was something that sent Socrates to jail because the owners of the means of production never wanted to hear something that would jeopardize their position in society.
References
Calder, W. M. (2002). The unknown Socrates: Translations, with introductions and notes, of four important documents in the late antique reception of Socrates the Athenian. Wauconda, Ill: Bolchazy Carducci Publishers.
Fagan, P., & Russon, J. E. (2009). Re-examining Socrates in the Apology. Evanston, Ill: North-western University Press.
Gray, V. (1998). The framing of Socrates: the literary interpretation of Xenophons Memorabilia. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.
Mcpherran, M. L. (1999). The religion of Socrates. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Plato, & Jowett, B. (2011). Apology. Auckland: Floating Press.
Socrates (469 BC 399 BC) was born in Athens, Greece and grew up during the golden age of Pericles Athens (Ahbel-Rappe and Kamtekar 3). Ahbel-Rappe and Kamtekar noted that Socrates served as a soldier in the Greek army during his youth (Ahbel-Rappe and Kamtekar 3). However, many knew Socrates as a person who questioned everyone and everything. Socrates did not write anything about himself because he lived in the ancient time.
Instead, scholars have learned about Socrates life through the works of his students like Plato and Xenophon, followers, and contemporaries. Socratic Method provided a basis for Western systems of thinking, reasoning, logic, and philosophy (Ahbel-Rappe and Kamtekar 3). The Greece court sentenced Socrates to death through hemlock poisoning due to changes in political circumstances (Ahbel-Rappe and Kamtekar 7). Socrates did not flee into exile, but accepted the death penalty.
Socrates was a Greek philosopher, whose life has scanty information. The writings that captured Socrates life had other purposes. Hence, it is possible that none of the writings presented a complete picture of Socrates life. Generally, collective analyses of all these writings provide useful insights, which are unique and vivid presentations of Socrates ideals and personality. Socrates did not come from a noble family. As a result, he must have received basic education of Athens at the time and acquired some skills from his father. Scholars believed that Socrates was a mason (his fathers craft) before he later focused on philosophy. However, scholars differ on how Socrates supported himself through his philosophical ideologies because he remained poor and rarely supported his family.
Socrates fought for democracy in Greece, which scholars believed was the cause of his downfall, trial, and eventual death sentence (Frey 106). Many contemporaries of Socrates opposed his political, moral, and intellectual beliefs (Frey 106). The jurors argued that Socrates ideas and teachings corrupted the minds of young people. Socrates openly criticized the ruling class for thinking about their own political interests, families, and career.
Self-interest dominated Athens. Plato and Xenophon concurred that Socrates could have escaped into exile, but he chose to face death for several reasons. First, Socrates believed that an escape would show that he feared death (Frey 106). Second, Socrates believed that it would be difficult to teach well his philosophical views while in exile. Finally, Socrates chose to live under the laws of Athens, and an escape would mean he was unprincipled. Socrates died of consuming hemlock poisoning as a punishment from the jury.
Summary of Socrates Accomplishments
Perhaps the most significant contribution of Socrates remains the Socratic Method. It has influenced Western philosophies and concepts of justice and goodness. Today, researchers apply Socratic Method in scientific methods while developing hypothesis. In addition, Socratic Method established Socrates as a political philosopher and a pioneer in other fields like ethics and moral philosophy (Irwin 147). Moreover, educators use the question and answer approach of Socrates to elicit responses from learners.
It is hard to distinguish philosophical beliefs of Socrates from those of Plato because of little differences between the two scholars. Some scholars believe that Socrates views and beliefs could have influenced the later works of Plato, particularly in literary writings (Socratic styles). Socrates developed the concept of Socratic paradoxes. Some views associated with Socrates conflict with the normal sense of reasoning. According to Santas, there are Socratic paradoxes, which are self-referential paradoxes with their roots from the Socrates phrase I know that I know nothing noble and good (Santas 147). Socrates phrase of I know that I know nothing reflected his deep knowledge in a sense of self-awareness. Scholars believe that the phrase shows Socrates wisdom and knowledge in acknowledging his ignorance, wrongdoing, its consequences, and ignorance of people who do wrong things. Socrates accomplishments are also in virtue.
Politically, Socrates believed that philosophers were the best people to lead a country. Socrates noted that only wise people like philosophers could understand ideals of the world. Hence, they were suitable to lead others. The Greeks believed in daemonic sign or covertness. They noted that Socrates must have perfected the use of these signs. Socrates could only note such inner voices when he was about to engage in a wrongful act. Scholars believed that such signs barred Socrates from actively participating in politics.
An explanation on why Socrates is important
One can understand why Socrates was so important from different perspectives. First, scholars have credited modern philosophy to Socrates (Hadot 93). From philosophical perspectives, one can understand how Socrates made significant contributions to concepts of self-awareness, knowledge, love, virtue, goodness, and justice. These were core bases of Socrates teaching. Socrates noted that wrongful deeds resulted from ignorance. Socrates political beliefs have encouraged the concept of democracy. Socrates believed that only philosophers were suitable for political leaders because they were wise and could understand the ideals of the world. However, he never engaged in politics.
Socratic Method encouraged the development of modern scientific methods based on hypothesis in which one must determine the best option. Moreover, Socratic Method is the foundation of modern Western philosophical concepts, which emphasis concepts of moral philosophy, justice, and goodness. From the writings of his students, one can establish how Socrates ideologies influenced Western speculative ideologies. Philosophical pedagogy could have originated from ideas of Socrates. Trainers have applied this concept by asking questions in order to educe responses from learners. This method allows students to develop critical thinking and insights. Socrates developed the foundation of modern philosophy through his students, such as Plato and Xenophon. In addition, Socrates ideologies established the basis for ethics, logic, and epistemology.
Evaluation of Socrates
Socrates remains one of the most important and influential philosopher of all times. His ideas are the foundation of modern Western philosophical concepts. As a result, he created the idea of self-knowledge. Socrates noted that one should care for ones self because it was the most imperative thing to do in life. Today, many educators have adopted the concept of question and answer approach to teaching. This was Socratic Method of eliciting best responses from his students. The method has been effective in teaching abstract concepts. This is a dialectical approach, which involves probing ethical and moral concepts like justice and goodness.
It is imperative to note that influences of Socrates found their ways in Platos works. This is how one can be able to learn about the Socrates dialogue. Philosophical concepts of Socrates appealed to many followers, but the ruling class noted that such influences were dangerous for Athens. Socrates encouraged his students to question their leaders. Socrates also shows what makes ideal integrity even in the face of death. One can learn that it is imperative to discuss and live philosophy as Socrates did (Hadot 93). Overall, it is difficult to come up with effective evaluation of Socrates because scholars have illustrated that Socrates students could have possibly changed his ideologies and thoughts. Hence, it is not possible to get a clear account of Socrates amidst diverse claims and evidence.
Works Cited
Ahbel-Rappe, Sara and Rachana Kamtekar. A Companion to Socrates. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2009. Print.
In Platos The Republic Socrates presents two main definitions of justice that are committed to presenting human tendency to help other people. The philosopher also claims that people should not do any harm to each other even if they are enemies, which is the core meaning of being just. Although most of Socratess views on justice are heavily criticized, Socrates still believed that the states should be ruled by philosophers because their ability to negotiate and resolve conflict would prevent the corruption of the administrative system. This layer of society is also able to predict human inclination to be influenced by power, which leads to creation of such political systems as oligarchy and democracy. In this respect, it should be stressed that the narration introduces Socrates in a vigorous opposition to democracy.
Platos Apology represents the most reliable evidence about the Socrates as a historical figure. This is of particular concern to the interpretation of Socratess political and philosophical visions. The admission of ignorance, therefore, was considered a strong foundation for philosophy as a science, which leads to developing new experience and knowledge. Further elaborated discussions were dedicated to the analysis of Socratess criticism of corrupted system of government. Based on philosophers ignorance ideology, he still believed that even if a man was ignorant, he could still become a wise ruler. In this respect, the source provides an extensive overview of Socratess views on philosophy and political life.
The Death of Socrates represented by French artist Jacques-Louis David introduces the story of the philosophers execution as a punishment for his criticism of Critias. His death, therefore, is also represented as the final lesson for his pupils. Once again, the painting interprets Socratess stoic personality, as well as his emotional distress. The picture also introduces Socratess indifferent attitude to death, as well as his full commitment to his ideals. Most of his pupils surrounded him in grief and ignored the moment of Socratess emotional weakness. The scene depicted in the picture introduces philosophers great concern with the science and political situation, as well as with existential matters.
Finally, Nietzsches The Problem of Socrates imports the idea that the teaching of Socrates has long been misinterpreted over the years. In particular, the philosophers vision was confined to the learning more about rationality and morality, as well as the how a person can achieve wisdom without knowledge acquisition. In particular, Nietzsche believes that a consensus on Socratess true teaching has a different meaning and is more associated with his hostile attitude to life where morality and rationality are weapons to resist the existed ideology.
With regard to different interpretations presented above, the strongest evidence is introduced in Platos Apology because it is the first dialogue introduced as a primary document. In particular, the source introduces a multifaceted analysis of Socrates personality and his philosophical outlook on life. In addition, Apology also introduced rich cultural and historical contexts, characterizing and supporting ideological vision and teaching of Socrates. More importantly, it also produces evaluation of Socratess relationships with other philosophers, particular his overt opposition to their accusations. Finally, the philosopher also rejected the political system, which is also brightly revealed in the source under analysis. The discussion is worth for forwarding development and analysis of further facts about this historic figure because it provides overwhelming information on various arguments.
It is significant to mention that Socrates was born around 469 BC in Athens. Socrates was educated by his father in the art of stone processing in his early years and was even considered a capable sculptor. However, the philosopher soon left his fathers workshop to study rhetoric and sophistic wisdom with the educated Athenian Crito. Socrates was an active figure in Athens; he was never charged money from students for education and lived in simple, ascetic conditions. He spent all his life in Athens and did not surrender to the temptation to travel as other philosophers did. However, during the Peloponnesian War, he went to war and defended his city. Socrates fought near Potidaea, Delia, and Amphipolis and protected the philosophers condemned to death, including the son of his friends Pericles and Aspasia, from unjust judgment. He mentored the Athenian politician and general Alcibiades and saved his life in battle (Taylor, 2019). After the establishment of the dictatorship by Alcibiades, Socrates condemned the tyrants and sabotaged the measures of authoritarianism.
When the dictatorship was deposed, enraged citizens charged Socrates with the fact that the Athenian army abandoned the wounded commander-in-chief. The philosopher was accused of not honoring the gods the city honored but introducing new deities and being guilty of corrupting the youth (Taylor, 2019) . As a free Athenian citizen, Socrates was not subjected to the death penalty but accepted poison himself. Information about the philosophers personal life is limited. It is essential to mention the personal life of the philosopher; according to Aristotle, Socrates married twice. At first, he married Xanthippe, who bore his son, and then he married Myrtos, the daughter of Aristides, who bore him two sons (Taylor, 2019)
Key Ideas
The Socratic dialogues were a search for proper knowledge, and an essential step on this path was the realization of its absence, the understanding of ones unawareness. According to legend, Socrates was called by the Delphi Pythia the wisest of all the wise. This is evidently connected with his statement about the limitations of human knowledge: I know that I know nothing (Taylor, 2019). In the method of irony, Socrates adopts the mask of a simpleton, asking him to teach something or give advice. There is always a goal behind this game, to force the interlocutor to discover himself and his ignorance, to achieve the effect of a beneficial shock to the listener.
Socrates addresses the problem of humans, the question of the essence of man, of his nature. Socrates claimed that studying the laws of nature and the movement of the stars is possible, but it is essential to arrive at the same deep truths of knowing human beings (Taylor, 2019). For Socrates, a person is, above all, his soul. By soul, Socrates means a persons mind, the ability to think, and conscience, the moral beginning. If a persons essence is his soul, then it is not his body that needs special care but rather his soul (Taylor, 2019). An educators highest task is teaching people how to cultivate their souls. The soul is perfect and virtuous when virtue makes it perfect. In Socrates, virtue relates to knowledge, which is a necessary condition for good actions.
Theories and Schools of Socrates
In his philosophy, Socrates reduced virtue to knowledge and optimistically believed that all could become moral if they knew what was good. All evil arises only from ignorance of the good; no one is evil by nature or voluntarily (Blum, 2018). These philosophical views of Socrates combined psychological determinism with the idea of the free, creative development of the spirit through acquiring and producing knowledge. It is also important to describe Socrates doctrine of God. In the time of Socrates, Greek philosophical thought had already destroyed the old belief in a humanistic Olympian god, and Socrates stood at the pivot of Greek thought to monotheism (Blum, 2018). He was the first to understand deity not as a natural but as a moral force. The identification of God with the idea of goodness and righteousness brought Socrates philosophy closer to monotheism and, in some respects, to Christianity.
Society and state are not simply the scene of struggles of individual or group egoisms. They are based on the idea of the whole, some divinely consecrated rational plan (Blum, 2018). In order to rule the state, one needs to understand this plan. It is important to describe the school of Cynics, which had its own postulates. The meaning of life they considered the achievement of virtue, by which they understood the reduction of needs and independence from society and the state (Blum, 2018). The adherents of the Cyrenaics school contrasted the asceticism of the Cynics with hedonism (enjoyment of life). In the Megarian school, the focus was on the problem of the singular and the general in knowledge in favor of the general (Blum, 2018).
The Importance of Socratic Philosophy
It is important to mention the glory of Socrates. Not long after his death, Socrates appeared as a distinguished thinker. The glory of the reformer of philosophy, who constituted an epoch in its development, has forever remained with Socrates. Thus, the whole previous period of its history is termed pre-Socratic (Blum, 2018). Aristotle honors Socrates for initiating a scientific methodology in the form of inductive reasoning and general definitions, while Cicero praises Socrates for being the creator of moral and social philosophy (Blum, 2018).
Reasons to Study Socratic Philosophy
Socrates understood the goal of his activity as making people better, that is, he wanted to make better people in an irrelevant sense, in contrast to the sophists, who understood better as people who were capable and adept in practical and political matters (Blum, 2018). Socrates attempted to restore the authority of knowledge that the sophists had destroyed. In questions of ethics, Socrates developed the principles of rationalism. His method of asking questions that presuppose a critical attitude to dogmatic assertions is entitled Socratic irony (Blum, 2018) . Dialectic is the art of arguing; in Socrates practice, dialectic became the primary method of finding the truth. Socratic irony is a critical attitude to dogmatic statements. In subsequent eras, Socrates became the embodiment of the sage ideal. Socrates introduced the concept of singularity and the general in cognition in favor of the general (Blum, 2018).
References
Blum, A. F. (2018). Socrates, the original and its images. Routledge.
Imitation of events from life in the form of various types of art is a natural activity for human beings. Poetry, as one of the most emotional types of art, is closely connected with the depiction of real events and people, emphasizing certain aspects depending on the purpose of creation. Aristotle, in his Poetics, argues that different types of poetry and some types of music have different concepts as their objects (Aristotle). The clearest contrast is between tragedy and comedy, which, although they use the same patterns of structure and plot, differ significantly in their aims. In particular, tragedy is about mythical characters who go through fear and pain, while comedic characters are about ordinary people whose problems are ridiculous. Socrates from the Golden Ass is a good example of an inferior person involved in comic actions since his story does not contain pathos, and his mischief does not bring pain and fear.
Aristotle, in his essay, defines poetry, its various types and also describes its components. The philosopher emphasizes that although such types of poetry as epic poetry, tragedy, comedy, and dithyrambic poetry are different modes of imitation (Aristotle). However, they differ depending on the medium, the object, and the mode, which constitutes their distinct features. The medium is associated with a type of art and uses language, rhythm, or melody together or separately for the imitation. The objects of imitation can be events, people, animals, things, or phenomena that are represented in poetry. The mode is a way of simulating an object, such as a narrative or an actors performance on a stage. Imitation is a natural activity for people, and viewers find pleasure in it, recognizing and understanding familiar images that can be found in the real world.
Objects can differ in moral characteristics, in particular, be good or bad. In other words, the object imitation can be attributed to either superior or inferior actions (Kitano 4). Aristotle explains that poetry must imitate objects either as they are, as they are perceived, or as they should be (Aristotle). According to the philosopher, Since the objects of imitation are men in action, and these men must be either of a higher or a lower type (Aristotle). Whereas tragedy and epic poetry depict noble characters, comedy is about lower or inferior types. The comic character does not depict inferior types as not in the full sense of the word bad but as ludicrous being merely a subdivision of the ugly (Aristotle). Thus, in contrast to tragedy, which reflects superior characters and actions, the object of comedy is ridiculous. Kitano explains that the objects of tragedy are mythical and heroic characters, while comedy contains the image of ordinary people (3). Whereas tragedy must contain the description of pity and fear, which makes it superior, the object of comedy is a mistake that is not destructive or painful.
Even though tragedy and comedy differ in terms of subject matter, they follow similar plot patterns that reveal a characters path. At the same time, the plot of a tragedy develops due to a fearful and painful mistake, whereas in comedy, the mistake is made by the character himself and does not bring pain or fear (Kitano 5). Thus, tragedy and comedy focus on the error, which becomes the center of the plot development. However, the superior errors that the tragedy uses are serious and contain pathos. Inferior errors in the comedy, on the contrary, are not serious and without pathos (Kitano 5). Thus, the absence of pathos is a feature that determines the inferiority of the objects imitated in comedy. Additionally, both tragedy and comedy are based on a plot that contains a characters mischief without its timely recognition; after that comes awareness, and the character either gets punishment or avoids it. In comedy, mischief is ridiculous and does not contain pathos, which makes it inferior (Kitano 5). A comedic mistake does not bring destruction and pain, not appealing to the serious and ethically related emotions of the viewer.
The Socrates represented in The Golden Ass is an example of the inferior actions that make up the comic plot. From the very beginning of the story of Socrates, the reader understands that the events described are of a comic nature. First of all, as noted, the main difference between comedy and tragedy is the de Socrates states, It was only because I went in search of a bit of pleasure, to see a gladiatorial show I had heard a lot about, that I got into this dreadful mess (Apuleius 4). These events do not refer to heroic and mythical circumstances but describe the ordinary events in which the character found himself.
As the story progresses, the reader realizes that Socrates pitiful position in which he was found was the result of his own error, which is a typical feature of comedy. In particular, Socrates explains that he was first robbed by bandits and then gave all his belongings to the owner of the inn with whom he shared a bed after unfortunate events (Apuleius 4). Aristomenes notes that the cause of Socrates misfortune is preferring the pleasure of fornicating with a leathery old hag to your home and children (Apuleius 4). Thus, the character is an example of inferior actions that come from the mistake of the person himself, which is the object of comedy. Socrates is subject to the vices of ordinary people, which ultimately leads him to ridiculous consequences that do not contain pain or fear.
Socrates tells Aristomenes the story that the woman he shared a bed with is an ugly witch who turns her ex-lovers into various animals. Although Aristomenes does not believe Socrates story, he becomes frightened and, at night, barricades the door to the room where they rested (Apuleius 4). At night, the witch comes to Socrates and Aristomenes; she drains the blood of Socrates and rips out his heart, replacing it with a sponge, after which she urinates on Aristomenes and leaves. Feeling a sense of fear that Aristomenes will be accused of killing Socrates, he tries to hang himself, but because of the rotten rope, he does not succeed. In the morning, Socrates awakens as if nothing had happened, and the friends continue on their way. However, on the way, Socrates and Aristomenes come across a spring from which Socrates drinks. The sponge put in the place of his heart falls out, and he dies.
Thus, the story of Socrates is an example of a comic plot that follows all the canons and depicts Socrates as a person performing inferior actions. As Kitano emphasizes, comedy should follow the traditional structure with a beginning, middle, and end that is presented in the story (4). In the end, the character either avoids punishment or receives it due to the late realization of what he did. Socrates, in this connection, committed mischief in relation to the witch, which characterizes him as an inferior person. His actions come from his own vices and give rise to a mistake, which becomes the cause of events. This element is the main one that distinguishes a comic plot from a tragic one.
Finally, the main condition that distinguishes comedy is the absence of pain and fear associated with the central problem caused by the inferior characters mischief. Socrates, as a character, did not experience any unpleasant emotions associated with what happened at night. He is sure that replacing the heart with a sponge is just a dream that he dreamed (Apuleius 8). In the end, Socrates also suddenly dies without experiencing emotional and physical pain. This aspect is relevant to Aristomenes; although he had to flee the country, he escaped the potential punishment for Socrates death. Aristomenes notes that And now I have remarried and live in Aetolia (Apuleius 10). Thus, the mischief of Socrates is not associated with emotional upheavals and the transformation of heroes who overcome the trials of fate through pain and fear.
As an inferior person depicted in the comedy, Socrates makes a mistake because of his own vices and inclinations, which in the end does not bring pain and fear. In contrast to tragedy, where the character would have to confront a witch in order to save his life, the events associated with this character are comical. Although Aristomenes is nervous about what is happening, he easily survives this episode by burying Socrates and continuing on his way (Apuleius 10). This aspect is the main determinant of Socrates as inferior since his life, death, and the events that happen to him do not affect anything except his own life. As Pico della Mirandola suggested, the human being is free to create his own destiny and create himself, which Socrates did through his mischief (Mirandola). As an ordinary person, the depravity and licentiousness of a character define him as inferior, which does not contain pathos appealing to the audience.
Socrates does not experience pain and fear and does not overcome heroic obstacles. Instead, he falls into a trap due to his own mischief, the consequences of which he cannot avoid. Apuleius invites the viewer to take the characters problems lightly, constantly appealing to comic events, such as Aristomenes unsuccessful attempt to hang himself (Apuleius 6). The acts of Socrates are so irrelevant that they are incapable of bringing death or suffering. As ordinary people do not affect the course of the world order or the lives of people around, so the inferior comic character finds himself in a limited situation relating exclusively to himself. Moreover, the story that happened to Socrates is so unrealistic that the viewer simply cannot relate to it, which eliminates the pathos completely. It is ridiculous in its essence, which brings to the fore precisely the moral ugly of Socrates as an inferior character. This ugliness is a comic foundation, which is the cause of the misfortune and death of the hero of the story.
Socrates of the Golden Ass is a classic example of a comic character, as he has traits of an inferior person. In particular, he makes a mistake, which becomes the cause of all the unfortunate events that happen to him. The mistake made is the result of Socrates depravity and licentiousness, which describes him as an ordinary person. Finally, he does not escape punishment for his mistake because he simply does not realize it. However, the events of this story do not bring pain and fear to anyone. They have no meaning to anyone but Socrates himself. These aspects make Socrates an excellent example of an inferior person involved in a classic comic act.
Works Cited
Apuleius. The Golden Ass or Metamorphoses. Penguin Books, 2004.
In Socrates dialogue with Euthyphro about what piety is and what actions can be considered pious, no conclusive definition is reached. Although Euthyphro offers several definitions of piety, Socrates refutes them, pointing out the logical fallacies within them. This paper examines and attempts to propose an answer to one of the questions posed by Socrates to Euthyphro: What is that excellent aim that the gods achieve, using us as their servants?
Discussion
In the dialogue, Euthyphro argues that people help Gods achieve an excellent aim by being pious. However, he fails to identify the principal excellent aim of the Gods that is achieved through their servants ministrations ( Platos Euthyphro, 11e-14c ). Euthyphro evades this question in their conversation and leaves Socratess query unsatisfied. The question presupposes that Gods work toward a specific goal that humans help them achieve. It can be argued that the ultimate intention of the Gods work to which people actively contribute is the betterment of mens souls. Therefore, any human action aimed at self-improvement of improvement and enlightenment of others can be considered pious as it serves the excellent aim of bettering the souls of humans. Thus, being good to the Gods lies in helping them achieve the chief goal. Socrates can use this answer in court to defend himself against the accusation of corrupting youth. As maintaining a false belief can be viewed as highly damaging to the human soul, Socrates attempts to show the youth the truth he believes in can be considered a pious action.
Conclusion
In summary, the most sensible answer to Socrates question is that the aim that the gods achieve using people as servants is the improvement of the human souls. Therefore, pious actions can be viewed as pious because they serve this utmost divine purpose. Furthermore, any action that seeks to enlighten people and better their understanding of the divine should be viewed as pious, allowing Socrates to use this reasoning for his defense.
Socrates is an Athenian and one of the founders of western philosophy. He is is mainly known through the works of conventional writers, especially the writings of his students, Plato and Xenophon (Ramose 69). Most of his achievements and thoughts appear in the writings of his students, for example, Aristotle, Xenophon, and Plato, because Socrates did not write anything on his own. Accounts about Socrates can be derived from three existing sources, i.e. conversation of Plato and Xenophon, the drama of Aristophanes, as well as scholars description.
Some facts about his life that are available are the following. His wife was called Xanthippe and she was younger than he was (Ramose 70). According to Ramose (74), he was a stone-cutter; the profession was inherited from his father. He exceptionally carved the sculpture of the Three Graces, which stood near the Acropolis till the 2nd century A.D. (Ramose 77). However, ancient sources state that, after having retired, he did not continue his career as a stone-cutter, but devoted himself to philosophy. It is also evident that the philosopher served in the Athenian army, where he saved lives of many people, such as Alcibiades (Ralkowski 394). Socrates is famous for developing the various philosophies that are still applied in modern society and philosophy. They include the Socratic method of solving problems, philosophical beliefs, knowledge, virtues, politics, covertness, and satirical dramatists.
Socrates Trial and Death
He lived during the time of Athenians transition from domination to democracy. He was an opponent of democracy, and some scholars describe his trial as the one that was politically instigated. He was always in conflict with political leaders because of criticism of their position and holding his own position on morality (Ralkowski 397). He was constantly against the credence that the privileged had been always on the right and referred to that belief as immorality. His social and moral censor made his situation worse, and his endeavor to promote fairness and justice was a core cause of his execution. His life was endangered after his friend had asked whether there had been somebody wiser than Socrates. His friends answer to him was absurd because he knew he was not intelligent (Ralkowski 398). Therefore, he questioned many to find out whether it was true that he was wiser than they were. He later realized that he was wiser than the other were because he was aware of his own unawareness. Ralkowski (399) argues that those Athenians who were questioned appeared to look foolish, and this made them turn against him and accuse him of unlawful activities, such as Heresy and corrupting the young. However, he defended himself as a meddler until the closing stages. During his trial, the logician was asked to define his penalty, and he suggested that he should have been paid remuneration by the administration and free food for the rest of his life for the good work he had done to the Athenians (Critchley 82).
It is critical to note that despite the fact that he played a key role in promoting justice and fairness, he was found guilty of debasing the minds of the young Athenians and rejecting the gods (Critchley 86). Consequently, he was sentenced to death by taking a blend of poison hemlock. It is important to note that Socrates gave an insolent justification because he believed that he was better dead than alive, and the right time had come for him to die. Although he had an opportunity to escape, he believed that having done so, he would be chased by the fear of death and would not be able to reflect himself as a true philosopher (Critchley 89). According to him, there was no place for him to escape as his teaching would not be approved in any other country, and it would also signify a break of his social contract . He also feared that his friends would have been held responsible for his escape if he had ran away. Critchley (91) states that Socrates perseverance and courage to face death made him equal to a martyr.
Works Cited
Critchley, Simon. The book of dead philosophers. New York, NY: Random House LLC, 2009. Print.
Socrates was a philosopher from Athens. His moral and intellectual integrity is reflected in all aspects of his life. This is evident even in the face of betrayal and execution by his fellow Athenians. Socrates way of thinking and of life is presented in four well-known works. These include the Platonic Dialogue Euthyphro, Apology of Soctrates, the Crito, and Aristophanes Clouds. His influence on Platos dialogues greatly affected the development of Western philosophy (West and West 9).
Charges made against Socrates
According to Westand West(10), Socrates was charged with impiety and corrupting the young. He challenged the Athenians who attributed every claim they made to wisdom. Consequently, he was hated by most of the Athenians. In addition, the youths followed and imitated him. This made the elders look foolish by showing their ignorance in the beliefs they held.
Therefore, they charged him with promoting corruption among the young people. His examination of moral and political opinions of his fellow Athenians brought him into conflict with the citys gods and its laws. This challenge was viewed by the fathers of his young followers as an attack on their paternal and political authority.
Socrates used reason as one of his philosophies in life. He did not just accept answers on issues. On the contrary, he first tested them in conversation and debate. He insisted that life both in public and private should be guided by the knowledge of what is right. He further stated that knowledge is different from opinion. Though he was guided by the truth about right and wrong, he did not think that truth was easy to come by and sometimes he wondered if it could be discovered at all (Westand West 10-11).
Socrates arguments
To the charge of corrupting the young, Socrates arguments proved futile. For instance, he does not show in any way that he is more of an expert on education than the law and hence his arguments do not help in proving his innocence. In addition, he argues that he could not harm the young intentionally since he knew that harming someone would lead to harm in retaliation. In response to the charge of impiety, it is less convincing.
This is because it proves as a contradiction of Meletus charge against him. The arguments are not sound. For example, he is guilty of impiety because he does not believe in the Gods of the city since he knows no truth about them. He is also guilty of corrupting the young because he teaches them to disbelieve in the authority of the gods and the laws (Westand West 19).
Socrates trial
Socrates should have been imprisoned instead of being exiled or executed. This is because what he propagated was not really meant to corrupt the young or defy the laws as it was claimed. If viewed positively, Socrates insights brought about political liberalization and respect of one anothers each rights. The charges made against Socrates were the main reasons that he was brought to trial. However, he could not prove his innocence in a convincing manner (Westand West 17).
Socrates Essay Conclusion
Persecuting people who try to criticize the powerful has been a common occurrence in many places globally. An example is in Rwanda, where the Tutsi minorities persisted in their military offensive and demands for political power and refused to come to an agreement with the Hutu government. This led to retaliation from the Hutu regime by killing more than three-quarters of Rwandas domestic Tutsi.
Works Cited
West, Grace & West, Thomas. 4 texts on Socrates. New York: Cornell University Press, 1998. Print.
In Theaetetus, Socrates argues about the matter and essence of knowledge in his dialogue with Theodorus. While the latter believes that knowledge is perception, the former provides another perspective of knowledge, giving examples and refuting the arguments of Theodorus and Theaetetus. In this work, Plato endeavors to show that Socrates does not impose his opinion on the man but merely navigates him to find the truth. As a result, the fallible nature of Theodorus point of view and Socrates ideas and reasoning complete the dialogue, climaxing in the formers belief.
The dialogue of Socrates with Theodorus and Theaetetus
At the beginning of the dialogue between the men, Theodorus claimed that knowledge is perception, which led Socrates to analyze the view of Protagoras. The perspective of Protagoras is similar, and it alludes to the same points. However, according to Socrates, the given opinion cannot be regarded as truthful. The philosopher provides the statements of Protagoras: & everything is, for me, the way it appears to me, and is, for you, the way it appears to you&. Socrates sees this approach as devoid of truth since perception is always of what is, and free from falsehood as if its knowledge (Plato 152a). In his example, he says, when the same wind is blowing one of us feels cold and the other not (Plato 152b). As a result, such information can be subjective and depends on the individual. In another example, it can be said that beauty can be perceived differently, with one person claiming something to be beautiful and another not perceiving it this way. As a result, to Socrates, perception is based on subjective feelings and focuses on personal experiences, which cannot be false.
Socrates goes further to debate the claims of Protagoras by providing arguments regarding deities and animals. For example, as per Protagoras perspective, the perception of any creature is accurate. This leads to the argument that the perceptions of animals are not inferior to the perceptions of people, making them almost equal. Nevertheless, Socrates finds such a view ludicrous since, this way, people are no better than pig, or a baboon, or some other creature that has perception (Plato 161c). As a result, the perspective of Protagoras is fallible since peoples perceptions are superior to animals.
Yet, the given fallible argument transcends the mere concept of animals equality. As per Protagoras point of view, if all perceptions are equal, the perceptions of gods are equal to those held by mortals. Socrates, in his questions to Theaetetus, also refuted this view. For example, Socrates asks whether the man believes that he is to be no worse in point of wisdom than anyone whatever, man or even god? ending with another inquiry that such measure isnt meant to be applied to gods as much as to men (Plato 162b). This shows that the Protagorean measure stretches far beyond reality and common sense.
As for the opposite doctrine, it is viewed differently because it rests on the opinion of unchanging natures, which defies knowledge. At this point, it is superior since Socrates argues if the peoples perspective is truthful, well help them pull us over to their side (181a). Otherwise, their opinions and knowledge should be avoided if they are fallible. The philosopher implies that assuming that such people can provide reasonable ideas is foolish.
Conclusion
Thus, the dialogue of Socrates with Theodorus and Theaetetus focuses on the nature of knowledge, wherein the former provides arguments against the perspective of Protagoras. According to Theodorus, knowledge is perception, and this view is based on Protagoras reasoning. According to Socrates, the views of Protagoras are fallible since if all perceptions are equal, there should be no superiors between humans, gods, and animals. Lastly, Socrates speaks on the opposite doctrine and argues that if someones perceptions do not align with ours, people should avoid them.