Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Philosophy
Socrates has been accused of not recognizing the gods of the state, and also of inventing gods of his own. In fact, this is a two-part accusation. Socrates is first being accused for not believing in the state-sanctioned religion. Of course, it is impossible to know what Socrates does or does not believe. Based on his words, though, it would seem Socrates does actually believe in the gods although may not pay them the kind of respect that the Athenian courts would prefer.
The second part of the accusation is different. Here, the state accuses Socrates of inventing new divinities of his own. Socrates is in fact not starting a new religion and he does not tout the divine authority of any deity. If the accusation is taken collectively, that is, if declaration of guilt or innocence is made on the fulfillment of both these two parts, then Socrates is clearly not guilty.
In Plato's Apology, Socrates points out the logical fallacy in Meletus's argument: "I do not as yet understand whether you affirm that I…do believe in gods and am not an entire atheist…but only that they are not the same gods which the city recognizes - the charge is that they are different gods. Or, do you mean to say that I am an atheist simply, and a teacher of atheism?" Here, Socrates asks the state to clarify what the accusations are: is Socrates being accused of atheism, or is Socrates being accused of believing in non-state-sanctioned deities. Meletus unwittingly falls into Socrates's logical trap by stating, "I mean the latter - that you are a complete atheist."...
An atheist cannot simultaneously be accused of inventing gods because by definition an atheist disavows all gods.
Socrates also asks Meletus and the state to define exactly how they define god or the gods and whether "demigods" and "spirits" fall into the classification. If so, then it is also impossible to accuse a man of atheism while simultaneously accusing him of belief in spirits.
In Plato's Euthyphro, a similar argument takes place in which Socrates points out the inconsistencies in Meletus's argument. Socrates here refers directly to the gods, as in the statement: "murder, and of other offences against the gods." Socrates never once states disbelief and defends his spirituality with aplomb. What Socrates is trying to say in both Euthyphro and the Apology is that morality exists independently of the gods. It is quite impossible to say whether or not gods exist anyway, since gods are intangible. Yet it is possible to define morality.
Socrates does, though, hint at his spiritual beliefs being startlingly different from those of the men of Athens. In the Apology, Socrates states, "Men of Athens, I honor and love you; but I shall obey God rather than you." Socrates here seems to slip into monotheism. In fact, Plato writes about "God" differently from mentions of the collective "gods." It is as if Socrates is affirming God not as an anthropomorphic entity such as the gods of Olympus are -- in which case part of Meletus's accusations would be proven…
Works Cited
Plato. Apology. Translated by Benjamin Jowett. Retrieved online: http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/apology.html
Plato. Euthyphro. Translated by Benjamin Jowett. Retrieved online: http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/euthyfro.html
Socrates argues that the accusation is absurd, as the accusation implies that he is solely responsible for the state of the youth. Socrates uses the allegory of a horse trainer to explain that he is a trainer, rather than corruptor, of the youth (Cavalier, "Ancient Philosophy"). Socrates' second argument in his defense is that, had harmed the youth, the philosophy that evil begets evil would dictate that the youth would
Socrates and the Apology Socrates and Death in the Apology In The Apology, Socrates contrasts his ability to address the crowd against more skillful speakers stating that he offers truth over eloquence (17b). In essence, he infers that others use the power of persuasion and slick words to sway others vs. The truth. He postulates that there are others who will always present a skewed depiction of the facts in order to
Philosophy -- Plato's "The Apology" "The Apology" is Plato's recollection of Socrates' trial, conviction, sentencing and last words to the jury. The Apology is divided into three parts. The first part, Socrates' principal speech to the jury, is his argument against old and new accusations. The second part, Socrates' "counter-assessment," is Socrates' rebuttal of the prosecutor's recommendation of the death penalty. The third part, Socrates' final words to the jury, consists
Then, my good friend, take my advice, and refute no more." In short, you must learn to take care of yourself and deal with current circumstances -- refusing to participate in 'the system' will only cause you harm, and by extension, harm to those you care about. If politicians did not learn to deal with the real world on a practical level, nothing would get accomplished, including social justice.
Socrates is one of the most renowned philosophers of all times. His dialectic method is used in a number of ways and has vital importance in literature and deliberation. In the contemporary era, Socratic or Dialectic Method is the term that is used to point out a conversation between two or more people who might have opposing views about an issue but they come to a conclusion after trying to
Socrates and Plato Greek philosophy held a preeminent place in the middle ages among scholastics like Thomas Aquinas, whose Summa Theologica was an attempt to reconcile faith and reason. The faith aspect was supplied by the Church, but the reason came from classical (pagan) ecclesiology -- notably from Greek philosophers like Plato and Aristotle. The latter was the pupil of the former, and the former was the pupil of the first