Socrates: The Assassination Of The History
“The first legal assassination of the history”
Introduction:
The apology of Socrates is one of the top works of his disciple Plato, where he recounts the defense of this Greek Philosopher before the accusations of "impiety and corruption of youth," made by his detractors Meletus and Anitus before a Council conformed by Greek citizens. As we enter the arguments described by Plato, we realize that we are in front of an exceptionally superior man who asserts his thinking and seeks the truth through a logical reasoning never before recorded in history. Socrates relied on maieutics to prove his innocence before the baseless accusations of Meletus.
Although Socrates knows that rhetoric was a more persuasive technique, he does not use it. Instead, …show more content…
I do not want to vote for you. I do not want you to vote for me. Now, it seems, that if a mere thirty votes had been cast differently, I'd been acquitted." The way Socrates claims his innocence is that he adheres to the law of Athens by pointing to himself a reward rather than a punishment. He prophesies to those who condemned him that they will be punished, and they will have a significant number of sensors whom he contains, who will be all the more severe because they are younger. He tells them that by killing people not to blame their bad lives, it is not an honest way to get rid of censors. It is better to strive to be more …show more content…
Conclusion:
It was this combination of democratic participation and holy fear that was the key to the judicial process. When Meletus responded to him about religion: (P.52) “This is what I mean, that you don’t acknowledge any gods at all,” Socrates, in short, suffered the mistrust of his contemporaries, who disliked his attitude towards Athens’ government and established religion.
Socrates was not sufficiently persuasive in his self-defense because he used maieutics as a way of asking himself and others to draw real conclusions. Although this technique had success with his disciples, it had the opposite effect on the people of the town against the accusations of Meletus. Exposing the religion, traditions, and laws in the question was to threaten the very foundation of the civic life of the
Introduction:
The apology of Socrates is one of the top works of his disciple Plato, where he recounts the defense of this Greek Philosopher before the accusations of "impiety and corruption of youth," made by his detractors Meletus and Anitus before a Council conformed by Greek citizens. As we enter the arguments described by Plato, we realize that we are in front of an exceptionally superior man who asserts his thinking and seeks the truth through a logical reasoning never before recorded in history. Socrates relied on maieutics to prove his innocence before the baseless accusations of Meletus.
Although Socrates knows that rhetoric was a more persuasive technique, he does not use it. Instead, …show more content…
I do not want to vote for you. I do not want you to vote for me. Now, it seems, that if a mere thirty votes had been cast differently, I'd been acquitted." The way Socrates claims his innocence is that he adheres to the law of Athens by pointing to himself a reward rather than a punishment. He prophesies to those who condemned him that they will be punished, and they will have a significant number of sensors whom he contains, who will be all the more severe because they are younger. He tells them that by killing people not to blame their bad lives, it is not an honest way to get rid of censors. It is better to strive to be more …show more content…
Conclusion:
It was this combination of democratic participation and holy fear that was the key to the judicial process. When Meletus responded to him about religion: (P.52) “This is what I mean, that you don’t acknowledge any gods at all,” Socrates, in short, suffered the mistrust of his contemporaries, who disliked his attitude towards Athens’ government and established religion.
Socrates was not sufficiently persuasive in his self-defense because he used maieutics as a way of asking himself and others to draw real conclusions. Although this technique had success with his disciples, it had the opposite effect on the people of the town against the accusations of Meletus. Exposing the religion, traditions, and laws in the question was to threaten the very foundation of the civic life of the