Philosophy Socrates Was a Proud Citizen of

Philosophy Socrates was a proud citizen of Athens. He loved his native state so much that when he was condemned before her courts, he prefered to be sentences to death instead of exile, because to be away from Athens would have been unbearable to him. He had fought bravely in her wars and won great acclaim, and laid his life on the line for her protection.

Considering the degree of patriotism with which Socrates was endowed, it is strange and ironic that he was brought up on charges of corrupting the youth and challenging the laws of his state. It may in fact have been Socrates' passion for the egalitarian values of Athens that led to his prosection and death. As the first democracy, ancient Athens was a society where lawsuits ran rampant.

In that day many people seemed to scorn the constant suing, and it was a matter of public laughter and also concern, as indicated in various primary documents of the time including, for example, Aristophanes' Birds. Nonetheless, one can imagine that it still served an important regulatory function, allowing the democracy to control the actions of its people without the bureaucracy that a tyranny of the time would require. Socrates seems to be unusual among Athenians in that he as not overcome with this eagerness to sue.

In Plato's Apology the reader hears that this is Socrates' first time in court. More precisely, it is his first time suing or being sued, for apparently he had served as a juryman in the past like other Athenians, and he reports numerous times that he voted contrary to public opinion in order to uphold the justice of the state. It appears that Socrates was less interested in the mobocratic value of the courts serving as the sentimental fist of the moral majority, and more concerned with uphold overarching justice.

At one point he gives a short speech regarding the way in which he would not have done evil knowingly because it was not beneficial to himself, and therefore he should not be prosecuted. (For doing things unconsciously deserves private rebuke, not punishment) This seems to indicate a propensity for leaving aside litigation in favor of personal confrontation. That Socrates would not go to court, but would rather privately confront people he felt were out-of-line in some other venue (such as the marketplace), at first glance seems jut and patriotic.

He regularly argued with fellow citizens of all levels regarding justice, the law, and the good life. Yet if he was constantly arguing for morality and exhorting people to change, why was he considered to be corrupting the young? To understand this, it is important to recognize that in addition to arguing for morality, he also argued against the bloated consumerist lifestyle that most of Athens led. He also argued that one should be moral because of self-interest and for philosophical reasons, rather than appealing to religion.

While in either case he could have brought things to court (suing someone for too gluttonous of behavior somehow, or trying to change the laws to reflect a more humanistic standpoint), he preferred to take them up among people. This could be considered a corruption of the young and of the laws, because he was not going through proper channels (e.g.

The courts) in attempting to change things, and also because he was arguing against the established way of life in favor of a more ascetic and humanistic way of life. This was changing society, and these changes could be seen by those opposed to them as a corruption. So one can see how Socrates could be seen as a corruptor of the youth and the laws. He.