| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "SOCRATES ARGUMENT": |
|
|
"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, Forms & Epistemology, 2008.
This paper looks at Socrates' argument concerning forms or ideal structures and epistemology.
1,114 words (approx. 4.5 pages), 4 sources, MLA, $ 38.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this article the writer discusses that Socrates accomplishes much of his rational argument based on establishing that forms or ideal structures only result in knowledge and he argues that sophists make of knowledge nothing but a commodity. The writer points out that Socrates' ultimate demise is well-known through the reproduction of his argument by his star pupil, Plato and it is to Plato that most Socratic researchers must rely on to gain a better understanding of Socrates because he never wrote anything at all. The writer notes that it is Socrates' use of forms as a paradigm for epistemological study which has freed philosophical pursuits from simple contemplation of knowledge and moved it to the application of insight and wisdom. The writer maintains that for Socrates, the world of forms was useful as a rational construct upon which to make his philosophical points; that is, knowledge to Socrates was only the starting point for philosophical debate whereas for others such as the sophists, knowledge and the pursuit of it were the ultimate goal or pursuit.
From the Paper
"However, the force of Socrates' renunciation of sophist thought and doctrine comes through so clearly in Plato's work that it is clear that Plato relied on Socratic opinion almost exclusively for the foundation of his most renowned works such as the Republic which contains a series of Plato's works. Therefore, were this last the case then Plato would be known almost exclusively as the father of philosophy rather than Socrates and Socrates would be a mere footnote. Yet, the marvel of Socrates' fame and his foundational position in the philosophical body of knowledge is that through him philosophy was given a greater conception of itself as separate from pure knowledge which Socrates demonstrated was relatively invaluable without the more important qualities of moral justice, wisdom, and restraint.."
| |
|
"Socrates's Last Error", 2003.
Critiques Miroslav Ivanovic's analysis.
900 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 1 source, $ 31.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Discusses Ivanovic's deconstruction and unfair categorizing of Socrates's argument. Claims Miroslav ignores the spiritual aspects, the deliberate contradictions, irony, and humor of Socrates's argument.
From the Paper
"The first major problem in Miroslav Ivanovic's "Socrates' Last Error" is that he does not give enough credit to the irony and creativity of Socrates' arguments. Ivanovic seeks to categorize into a entirely and exclusively legal or rational argument. In ..."
| |
|
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."
| |
|
Socrates: Can Harm Come to a Good Person?, 2001.
An exploration of Socrates' definition of a good person.
1,560 words (approx. 6.2 pages), 1 source, $ 51.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This essay concerns the Greek philosopher Socrates and his definition of a good person. The author presents the argument that Socrates? definition is solid, but his defense is flawed. The author supports his argument with examples from Socrates' "The Apology".
From the Paper
"The Greek Philosopher Socrates claimed that no harm or evil can come to a good person. He argued this stance first of all by defining the characteristics of a good person. He believed in five basic traits of virtue that a person must exemplify in order to be good: justice, courage, temperance, piety, and wisdom. Of these five, all are centered on wisdom; that is, each trait must be understood somehow through wisdom (ECP 506). For example, Socrates lived to a relatively ripe age of around seventy years, and, by the time of his death, had gained a certain level of wisdom that taught him the importance of piety, temperance, courage, and justice. Thus, by gaining wisdom because he lived so long, he was able to relate the importance of the afore-mentioned traits. Overall, Socrates defines a good person as having virtue, wisdom or knowledge, and a certain goodness (or improvement) of the soul."
|
| Term Paper # 47511 |
temporarily unavailable
|
|
|
|
"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 and Plato, 2006.
This paper examines the teachings of Greek philosopher Socrates as well as that of his student, Plato.
902 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 1 source, MLA, $ 32.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper focuses on the Socratic method, which unlike most philosophical teachings, seeks to debase beliefs rather than build them up. This paper discusses the views and opinions of both Plato and Socrates in regards to the Socratic method. The writer of this paper contends and explains why readers of Plato's works should be skeptical of his presentation of philosophical notions through the argumentative style, which he attributes to Socrates. This paper discusses the basic philosophy behind the Socratic method, in which Socrates' reliance upon the soul to lead into the discussion of virtue could be attacked upon the assertion that insufficient evidence exists to contend that there are such things as souls. On the other hand, Plato believes that souls must exist because they explain the competing inclinations people can possess. This paper also delves into Plato's and Socrates' roles as philosophers and theorists.
From the Paper
"However, the chief limitation of the manner by which Socrates is expressed through Plato is that his lessons are no longer personalized with respect to the audience; they are only personal with respect to the characters Plato generates. The power of Socrates' technique is that it forces him to investigate many of his centrally held beliefs simultaneously with the person he is communicating; any questions that arise from his audience, or possible objections to his line of reasoning, must be addressed. This capacity is necessarily lacking when it is placed upon paper because any questions or objections that might be evoked in the reader inevitably go unanswered. For example, when Socrates argues, "So one may say this about everything; all other human activities depend on the soul, and those of the soul itself depend on wisdom if they are to be good."
| |
|
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' Threat to Athenian Democracy, 2004.
This paper explores the reasons for Socrates' trial and execution.
1,442 words (approx. 5.8 pages), 4 sources, MLA, $ 47.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explores why Socrates' teachings and character were irreconcilable with the civic order and authority of Athenian rule. The paper focuses on the arguments proposed by Socrates in light of the state of Athenian politics. The paper shows how his 'subversive' convictions and arguments on the state of the Athenian social model were seen as a threat that needed to be exterminated.
From the Paper
"The first source to draw on when looking at the question, and attempting to gauge the level of potential threat Socrates posed to the state of Athens, is the indictment he was charged with being guilty of in the first place: "This indictment and affidavit is sworn by Meletus, the son of Meletus of Pitthos, against Socrates, the son of Sophroniscus of Alopece. Socrates is guilty of refusing to recognize the gods recognized by the state and of introducing other divinities. He is also guilty of corrupting the youth. The penalty demanded is death." First let us look at the religious implications of such a charge."
| |
|
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."
| |
|
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."
| |
|
Socrates, Kant and Morality, 2008.
A comparative analysis of the views of Socrates and Kant on morality.
1,982 words (approx. 7.9 pages), 7 sources, APA, $ 62.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines Socrates' and Kant's philosophies regarding morality and looks at how the fundamental difference in the definition between the two is that Kant's moral failure is an independent act to a moral right by virtue of the lack of impact of consequences while Socrates' main model of immorality is based on injustice resulting from the action. It discusses, therefore, how the dilemma of immorality in the former is an ethical one and immorality in the latter is presented as a social dilemma.
Outline:
Socrates
Socrates on Morality
Kant on Socrates
Socrates, Kant and Morality
From the Paper
"Kant's Moral philosophy is one of the main alternatives to utilitarianism which marginalizes moral humanistic virtues. Kant's view on morality is essentially deontological which implies a focus on the action to be done regardless of the consequences ("Kant: The Moral", 2001). This implies that if a person is doing something that is right, then even if the results of his actions create a negative outcome, then he still did the right thing. There is also a prescriptive quality to Kant's view: the assumption is that everyone should do what is right and that it should be universally right (Wood, 2004). Thus, for an action to be considered moral, it should be within the capacity of everyone and viewed as a correct action universally ("Kant's Moral Philosophy", 2007). Viewing Socrates' action through Kant's Moral Philosophy, there are arguments both to support the morality of Socrates actions."
| |
|
A Dialogue with Socrates, 2004.
This paper discusses Socrates as an absolutist, who says that truth is the measure of all things; there is but one truth.
1,160 words (approx. 4.6 pages), 1 source, MLA, $ 39.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that Plato sets the standard for what was to be considered as 'justice' in his representation of the way a government should be obeyed and the concept of virtue in the manner to which an individual reacts within the boundaries of justice; however, the circumstances by which Socrates makes his point seems counteractive to the premise of his arguments. The author points out that the paradox of truth, the inability to find truth when the truth is not known, allows Socrates to demonstrate in practical terms what epistemology means; the theory of recollection is his answer to the paradox of truth. The paper concludes that Socrates believes (and seeks to prove in ?The Meno?) that true virtue is a matter of rational principles, and these cannot be merely relative, any more than mathematics can be relative, but his argument is out of place and disjointed.
From the Paper
"While serving his time before the execution in solitude, Socrates tells of an incident where he was ordered to bring a man to his execution by the oligarchy of the Thirty, which was then in power. He chose, first, not to physically interfere with their wishes but also chose not to obey their orders as he considered them morally wrong (462). By his actions, he seems to be saying that a man must follow his conscience above the rule of the law."
| |
|
Plato's "Crito", 2003.
An analysis of Socrates? arguments against the character Crito in this play by ancient Greek writer, Plato.
1,916 words (approx. 7.7 pages), 1 source, MLA, $ 61.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Plato?s "Crito" is a dialogue between Socrates and his friend Crito occurring the day before Socrates is to be executed. In this dialogue, Crito approaches Socrates with an offer of a possible escape, but it is not immediately accepted. Socrates questions whether the motive behind or reasons for the escape are good, and this leads to a major concept surrounding the whole dialogue--the concept of the definition of 'good'. The paper shows that Socrates makes it clear that to be good is to be virtuous, honorable, fair, and just, while everything else is secondary. While keeping with his definition of good, Socrates also believes that the law of the state is good, as he himself states that he would not have resided in the city were it not so. This premise is the key to Socrates? argument that because the law is good, to break or disobey the law is bad or evil, and thus every citizen who chooses to live under the law should strive to be good ? thus leading a good life. It is this that obliges Socrates to stay in jail and suffer his punishment, as it is people who have wronged him and not the law. Thus, in his afterlife, this will be well looked-upon. This essay disagrees with some parts of this argument and sets out to show that Socrates is not completely correct in his opinions.
From the Paper
"In a sense the contract that Socrates describes does exist, and citizens of a country or state are obliged to follow and respect the laws for that state. But if the laws are unfair or unjust, every citizen should have a right to act on that, in the form of appeals to politicians, or at an extreme, rebellion or revolts against the state. It should not be wrong to stand up against a state that is treating people unfairly or unjustly. With respect to Socrates specifically, he has been wronged by the justice system, and when he asks Crito ?ought a man to do what he admits to be right, or ought he betray the right?? that man should do definitely do what he thinks is right."
|
|
|
