| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "PATRIOTISM SOCRATES CRITO": |
|
|
The Patriotism of Socrates in "Crito", 2004.
A look at the reconciliation of the indignant words of Socrates to the jurors of the city's court at his trial and his loyal obedience to the laws of Athens in Plato's "Crito".
1,500 words (approx. 6.0 pages), 7 sources, MLA, $ 49.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that the apparent inconsistencies in the willingness of Socrates to disobey the government of Athens and its laws are merely the result of his love for Athens and distrust of the common people (hoi polloi) as rulers of the city. It shows that, to Socrates, the people of Athens collectively formed a force destructive to the ethical and philosophical ideals to which he adhered. These adherents to the tradition of concessive belief, according to Socrates, were of no use to themselves or to the city because they failed to make any significant contributions and merely provided one additional voice in the chorus that was Athenian democracy.
From the Paper
"Socrates maintains a consistent loyalty to Athens and its laws throughout his trial in the Apology and his discussion with a student in Crito. Both works portray Socrates as a patriotic individual who regarded his city and its population as separate entities and who intended wholeheartedly to improve the former while preventing ruin at the hands of the latter."
| |
|
Socrates? ?Apology? and ?Crito?, 2003.
An examination of the conflict in reasoning in Socrates? works ?Apology? and ?Crito?.
1,326 words (approx. 5.3 pages), 2 sources, MLA, $ 44.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines the conflicts between the dialogues of "Allegory of the Cave" and "Divided Line" from Socrates' works "Apology" and "Crito". It looks at how in "Apology", Socrates stipulates that if the court would discharge him on the condition that he no longer practice philosophy, he would not obey the law and how in the "Crito" he argues that the laws must be obeyed, firstly because if they are not then a city cannot function and secondly because escaping would constitute and unjust act. It analyses whether it is possible for Socrates to disobey the court?s ruling in the "Apology" and argue that one must never disobey a law in the "Crito" .
From the Paper
"Socrates also likens the relationship between citizen and state to that of child and parent (Crito, 50d). To avoid punishment would be akin to that of not abiding by the decision one?s parents made, effectively claiming that the state had no right to judge one in the first place. Socrates points out that if one thought this then one is free to leave the state, but by remaining there they effectively sign a contract to abide by the state?s rulings (Crito, 52e). Socrates points out that he is not an equal to the state?s laws, but an inferior and must abide by their decisions."
| |
|
"Apologia of Socrates" by Socrates, 2002.
An examination of the trial and death of Socrates in "Apologia of Socrates" by Socrates.
1,545 words (approx. 6.2 pages), 2 sources, MLA, $ 50.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the beliefs of Socrates and how his aim in ?Apologia of Socrates? was to prove that death was better than a life without independent beliefs. Socrates article is written as a defense of his probable suicide and offers three points about the suicide. That he is innocent of the charges against him, that he would be going to a better place and finally that he is old and was going to die soon anyway. The Apology of Socrates is his defense at his trial, where he is found guilty. In conclusion, the writer discusses that whilst Socrates is sentenced to death, he has no fear of death.
From the Paper
"Socrates did not seem to fear death, as it was inching closer to him every day. He told his fellow Athenians that his forced suicide would come back to hunt them, because he had no doubt that one day people would recognize his wisdom and criticize the people of Athens for killing him. Socrates advised his prosecutors to juts let him die naturally, especially since he was innocent.
The Apology is Socrates' defense at his trial. Socrates is aware that his accusers have warned the jury against Socrates' eloquence. However, Socrates states that the difference between himself and his accusers is that he, unlike them, is speaking the truth."
| |
|
Socrates, 2008.
A review on the importance regarding the nature of civic duty, as described by Socrates in "Apology" and the "Crito."
1,638 words (approx. 6.6 pages), 0 sources, $ 53.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper states that within the "Apology" and the "Crito" several points of extreme importance to Socrates are outlined regarding the nature of civic duty. Some have said that the two works contradict one another in that in the "Apology", Socrates states that he would break the law if there were a law made that said he could no longer practice philosophy and in the "Crito" he outlines the dire responsibility to uphold the laws of the state, and in this case allow himself to be put to death, rather than fleeing. This paper argues that there is no contradiction in the messages of Socrates, as he is consistently alluding to the idea that the laws, though just, are being applied unjustly, in his conviction.
From the Paper
"Socrates, believes that his responsibility to Athens, and to god is to maintain the calling set for him, he does not say he would break the law if he was to be given the option of leaving the court never to practice philosophy again, he says he would rather die than live a life contrary to God by not practicing philosophy for the betterment of the world, and of Athens. In other words, his honor is to serve God and Athens and accepting such a sentence would be contrary to both. 'Wherever a man has taken up a position because he considers it best, or has been posted there by his commander, that is where I believe he should remain, steadfast in danger, taking no account at all of death or of anything else rather than dishonor." (p. 380) Socrates believes that the people who are accusing and convicting him in his trial are abandoning the truth and therefore living contrary to God and to the state of their own souls."
| |
|
Socrates and the City, 2004.
A comparison of the way the city is viewed in Socrates's "Crito" and Plato's "The Republic".
2,162 words (approx. 8.6 pages), 0 sources, $ 67.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains how, in "The Republic", the city becomes not only a setting in which philosophy and human identity can be discussed, but also a metaphor for the very structure of human thought. It looks at the way Socrates views the city of Athens when he speaks of the fact that he has only very seldom left the city of his birth and that exile would be no better than death because either would separate him from Athens.
From the Paper
"Plato?s The Republic probably provides the best example of a Socratic dialogue in which the parallels between philosophy?s relationship to the city and the mind?s relationship to the active sensational body. In this work, Socrates is very explicit about this link, going so far as to suggest that it was only by picturing the internal struggle in an external political form that one could truly grasp at it and recognize truth. Indeed, throughout the ninth chapter of The Republic, Socrates continually poses questions based on a presupposition which states that man is like the State."
| |
|
The Trial of Socrates, 2005.
This paper argues that, in the trial of Socrates, Socrates was wrongfully condemned.
1,010 words (approx. 4.0 pages), 1 source, MLA, $ 35.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that, in his trial, Socrates was found guilty although he presented an adequate argument, but public bias wrongfully executed him. The author points out that Socrates was attempting to convey to the masses that he had followed the letter of the law on every occasion, even when it went against the decision of the Council: "I must obey the law and make my defense." The paper concludes that the Socratic Method is one of the most widespread and universal methods of deductively drawing a conclusion; thus, if Socrates corrupted the minds of the youth, then today the world is corrupted.
From the Paper
"Due to the unpopular exposure, Socrates had amassed during his quest for knowledge, the jury that heard his apology was bias; some, possibly having been ridiculed by Socrates during his search of philosophy. The people of Athens had come with the intention of convicting Socrates so that he would have been exiled. This could be seen in the dialogue between Crito and Socrates. Crito recommended to Socrates that he should flee in exile. If Socrates did so, none of the citizenry would pay any attention or care. However, Socrates being a man who had abided by the will of the State could not allow himself to flee and retain the status of a criminal. The point, which can be made from this example, is that the primary notion of the people of Athens was not for Socrates to be executed."
| |
|
The Alleged Hypocrisy of Socrates, 2004.
Shows that the philosopher, Socrates, did not contradict himself in his two works, "The Apology" and "The Crito".
1,873 words (approx. 7.5 pages), 3 sources, APA, $ 59.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
After reading the "Apology" and the "Crito," it appears that Socrates may be somewhat of a hypocrite. However, if one looks closely, this is not the case at all. This paper argues that Socrates does not contradict himself in these two works. Although, as the paper shows, the two texts do seem contradictory at first glance, a deeper look explains that, ultimately, Socrates insists that one should never betray what he believes is just. This is what the gods believe, he argues, and the beliefs of the gods should have precedence over laws. However, since the gods placed him in a situation where he was in the hands of the law, he willingly accepted his fate.
From the Paper
"While it seems that Socrates goes against his original stance in the Crito, he actually remains true to his original argument. Socrates believed that it would be unjust for him to escape, even though he has been convicted wrongly on the ignorant verdict of the majority. He believes that his escape would be unjust because he would be doing an injustice against the state of Athens and its laws, making an exception of himself, if he were to escape his lawful killing, however unjust in itself. He has been condemned to death under the Laws of the State into which he was born and in which he has lived his entire life, and whose laws he promised to obey."
| |
|
Martin Luther King and Socrates, 2007.
A comparative analysis of Martin Luther King and Socrates' views on civil disobedience.
900 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 2 sources, MLA, $ 31.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines Socrates' "Crito" and Dr. King's "Letter From Birmingham Jail" in order to compare their stances on civil disobedience. It argues that under certain circumstances and conditions, a person is morally justified, if not required, to disobey unjust laws as a symbol of civil disobedience, provided that such action does not harm anyone in the process. It looks at how clearly, Dr. King's methods did bring about equality for not just African-Americans but for all Americans, while nothing changed in the case of Socrates who finally was executed.
From the Paper
"In contrast to Dr. King's views on just and unjust laws as they relate to civil disobedience, Socrates, upon considering Crito's suggestion that he escape from prison (interestingly, both King and Socrates are in jail for almost the exact same reason, namely, civil disobedience), rejects Crito's proposal and then offers his personal opinions on the matter. First, Socrates declares that "to escape is neither just nor is it good" for himself, reference to his agreement with the officials in the Greek city of Athens to obey their laws at all times as a citizen. Socrates adds that escape is not to his benefit because "he who does wrong cannot live well" and "if one cannot live well, life is not worth living" ("Plato's Crito," Internet). "
| |
|
The Apology of Socrates, 2004.
Analysis of Plato's "Apology", regarding the prosecution of Socrates and a summary of Socrates trial.
1,478 words (approx. 5.9 pages), 5 sources, MLA, $ 48.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper looks at the trial and execution of Socrates from the perspective of Plato, the general moral and religious ideology of Greek society during that era, Greek fathers, and prominent Athenians. The paper also provides an overview of the arguments Socrates presented in his self-defense and his reasons for refusing to escape the death penalty.
From the Paper
"As one of the greatest and most influential of all the Greek philosophers, Socrates (469--399 B.C.E.) passionately believed that just behavior was better for human beings than injustice and that morality was justified because it created happiness and well-being. Essentially, Socrates seems to have argued that just behavior, or virtue, was identical to knowledge and that true knowledge of justice would inevitably lead people to choose good over evil and therefore to have truly happy lives, regardless of their material success. Since Socrates believed that knowledge itself was sufficient for happiness, he asserted that no one knowingly behaved unjustly and that behaving justly was always in the individual's best interest. Thus, as Socrates defined it, "moral knowledge was all one needed for the good life" (Stone 168)."
| |
|
"The Trial and Death of Socrates", 2006.
This paper explores Socrates' refusal to escape his death sentence in the tragedy "The Trial and Death of Socrates."
1,409 words (approx. 5.6 pages), 0 sources, $ 46.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this paper the author explores why Socrates refused to escape his death sentence in the tragedy "The Trial and Death of Socrates." Although Socrates had opportunities to flee the prison, the author argues that Socrates felt escape would have been acting unjustly. Socrates did not want to manipulate the jury with his dialogue or use any other means except his beliefs to defend himself. The author sees the final decision of the court to be unjust in many ways. However, the author feels Socrates' acceptance of the death sentence upheld his moral beliefs.
From the Paper
" To Socrates, for anyone to live well, their soul must be in the best possible state. To achieve this state one must not commit any unjust acts. Committing an unjust act corrupts a person and ultimately harms their soul. For Socrates, having a corrupted soul, prevents him from living the best possible life. While speaking to Crito, Socrates states that "life [is not] worth living for us with [the soul] corrupted" (47e). This statement meaning that a life is not worth living unless you live it well. This can mean doing or seeking what someone's purpose in life is. To Socrates this purpose, or how he lives well, is by pursuing what is true and just. Since he can not know what is just, he must always be seeking it. He also says that one can not properly pursue what is good and just if one's soul is unjust or corrupt. Therefore, for Socrates to live a fulfilling life, he must never do anything unjust act that would harm his soul and prevent him from seeking what is just and true. For this reason, fleeing is not an option because an unjust act like that would harm his soul."
| |
|
Socrates, Obedience and the Law, 2003.
A look at Socrates' civil obedience from the "Apology" and the "Crito".
2,804 words (approx. 11.2 pages), 6 sources, MLA, $ 83.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines how Socrates, born in 470 or 469 BC and executed at the age of 70, presents how one can act solely on the grounds of his belief and dedicate the life for the ultimate values. It discusses whether his refusal to obey the city?s orders were contradictory to his idea of obedience to the laws. Contrary to the view that sees Socrates as a defender of civil disobedience, it also argues that Socrates is a true defender of the laws who has dedicated the life for the active practice of the citizenship, using his acute reason and knowledge. It also shows how Socrates is different from conventional civil disobedients, such as Ghandi, and Martin Luther King Jr.
From the Paper
"Socrates? refusals to participate in the trial of the ten generals, and the arrest of Leon the Salaminian are in fact clear examples of Socrates? use of reason in political decision. During the time when Socrates served as a member of the Council because it was his tribe?s turn, the city ordered the presiding committee to form the body of the ten generals to rescue Athenian survivors in the naval battle (Apology 32a-b). Socrates reasoned that the city?s order was illegal, so voted against it (Apology 32b). The orators were ready to prosecute him, but he argued that he would risk the death, rather than follow the city?s order (Apology 32c). He also refused to obey the city?s order to bring Leon from Salamis in order to prosecute him. He reasoned that prosecuting Leon is illegal because his guilt was manipulated by the city. Some people might think that it is ironical to disobey the city?s order for the sake of the laws."
| |
|
Socrates, 2007.
A comparison of Socrates relationship with the city and people of Athens, in Plato's "Apology" and "Crito."
1,817 words (approx. 7.3 pages), 0 sources, $ 58.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses Socrates views on the city of Athens. It specifically compares the accounts of how Socrates related to Athens according to texts in Plato's "Apology" and "Crito." It discusses his criticism of Athenians, as well as his affiliation with the gods. It also looks into how he relates to the laws of Athens, according to the two texts and describes the differences found between the texts.
From the Paper
"So, who really is Socrates and what does he really believe about Athens? The question will never be thoroughly and consistently answered. While many scholars attempted to solve the discrepancies between the consequences of Socrates portrayal in the Apology and the consequences of Socrates portrayal in the Crito, these resolutions are only theories and not concrete answers, for neither Plato nor Socrates are alive to solve such discrepancies. Thereby one might be forced to be inclined to believe that Socrates held the gods in a higher regard than the held the state, and therefore he openly protested for the injustices that the Athenians were making him suffer (and committing against him). This is perhaps the most plausible answer. However, other possibilities should not be ignored because philosophy is open to the realm of interpretation and that is what makes it so utterly interesting."
| |
|
Analysis of ?The Apology of Socrates?, 2005.
A look at the self-portrait Socrates presents in "The Apology of Socrates" and his self-defense at his trial.
1,011 words (approx. 4.0 pages), 1 source, MLA, $ 35.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper summarizes and analyzes the self-defense Socrates presented at his trial and explains how Socrates was condemned to die not because he did not mount a successful defense, but because his accusers were threatened by Socrates?s wisdom and perseverance. The paper concludes by pointing out that Socrates defended himself successfully by proving he was not an evildoer and that he never intentionally corrupted the youth and that God alone is wise.
From the Paper
"Socrates was known as one of the most influential Greek philosophers of his time. ?The Apology of Socrates? offers a self-portrait based not on false gods or corruption, but rather on a vigilant attention to and exposure of common thinking and false wisdom. Socrates strongly believed that just behavior was better than injustice, and that living morally correct would bring about happiness and well-being. For his life, that is proven to be true. Socrates lived a righteous life, and died a happy man. Throughout the ?Apology?, Socrates is falsely accused of being a ?doer of evil, who corrupts the youth; and who does not believe in the gods of the state? (733). Socrates? self defense was a success because throughout his trial, he was able to prove he was not an evil doer, that he did not corrupt the youth, and that there was no man wiser than God."
| |
|
The Morality of Socrates and Euthyphro, 2008.
An analysis of the characterization of Socrates and Euthyphro, as depicted in Plato's "The Trial and Death of Socrates."
1,622 words (approx. 6.5 pages), 1 source, MLA, $ 52.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper contrasts the characters and moral fiber of Socrates and Euthryphro, as Plato has described them in "The Trial and Death of Socrates." The two men meet outside the court in Athens, where Socrates is being charged with impiety and corrupting the youth, and Euthyphro, a priest, is prosecuting his own father for murder. The author illustrates how Socrates is shown throughout the book to be humble, principled, caring, and just, while Euthryphro is exposed as an arrogant, foolish and impious man.
From the Paper
"Not least of all, Euthyphro is an arrogant man. He talks of being laughed at by the Athenian assembly for foretelling the future. He is convinced that they laugh because they are envious of his gift of prophecy. He rates himself as superior to most men and states that he has knowledge surpassing most men. He cannot back these claims as Socrates easily turns over every definition of piety the man can create. He does not even have the knowledge to teach a man who claims he knows nothing of piety himself, such as Socrates."
| |
|
Socrates, 2002.
A discussion of I. F. Stone's essay ?When Free Speech was First Condemned: The Trial of Socrates Reconsidered? which challenges some of the longstanding assumptions about Socrates.
695 words (approx. 2.8 pages), 0 sources, $ 24.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines the way in which Stone in his essay appears to be acting as a kind of prosecuting attorney across the ages, asking Socrates why and how the philosopher behaved in ancient Athens the way he did. By doing so, by using the format developed by Socrates himself, Stone hopes to shift the emphasis from the image of the hemlock-drinking, condemned philosopher to Socrates as he was in life.
From the Paper
"First of all, Stone challenges the simple association of Socrates with free speech. In fact, Socrates periodically challenged the democratic, free speech ideals of the Athens he lived in. Socrates hoped to create an ideal philosophical kingdom, ruled by a philosopher king. Although Socrates was condemned to death in Athens for what he said and advocated, this did not mean therefore that that Socrates had advocated free speech during his life, in his philosophy. Socrates was only able to flourish as long as he did in Athens because of the free debate and discussion encouraged in his resident city. Even though he condemned such free and democratic Athenian debate, Socrates benefited as a result of the city?s tolerance."
|
|
|
