in order to reinforce his premise. He says that the people whose opinion should be considered are people who have deep understanding of issues such as just and unjust, good and evil, honorable and dishonorable… If I could put his premise in simple modern words, it would be; we should consider the opinion of people who are experts in their professions. Since we now have the premise, we can unfold the logic supporting the premise. Socrates proposes an analogy in the form of an example to back up his premise.
He talks about the situation of a student and a gymnastics teacher. By common sense, we know that the student should listen, fear, and trust the teacher and his instructions, and should not be taking any advice regarding gymnastics from the public because they don’t understand it and don’t have experience in it. Thus, Socrates’s premise holds. Then, he dives into a more specific issue in the premise which is having understanding. He approaches it with a two parts situation, physical and moral, referring to it as “a parallel instance.” The first part says that taking advice from the public, who doesn’t have an understanding regarding the asked issue, will more likely result in a physical harm because they either have no reason or weak reason to their advice. The second part talks about “The higher part of man,” the moral part, where taking advice from people without understanding of moral issues like just and unjust is more likely to produce a person with weak morals which is harmful, too. Therefore, we should listen to the opinion of certain people who have …show more content…
understanding.
The way this premise connects to his main argument of not escaping is as follows; since Socrates should not consider the opinion of everybody, it does not make it a reason for him to escape even if the people thought he
should.