The Readings of The Apology of Socrates and Crito
[2024-02-24 04:56:20]
In a book criticized and apologized for reading by Socrates and Socrates and a critical apology, I found that Socrates was not an ordinary philosopher. Philosophers will question everything, but Socrates' method is different from most other philosophers. From one side of the road, Socrates can be considered insensitive and arrogant. Because he destroyed the law, they fulfilled their ideals, left their families, and ignored people's values. Meanwhile, he can question the fact that many people have no doubt about it, and can regard it as a wise man.
By reading Plato's apology for Socrates and Christ, I was able to see how Socrates made a significant decision and what his main decision was. As a person, we have personal ethics that leads to our own moral or immoral decisions. Sometimes, your own morals and beliefs may oppose the state's view, or enforce the law and ask for justice. In this case, we rely on our own beliefs by seeking morality, or by believing in higher powers to pursue justice. In my opinion, I think that Socrates respects the ability to pursue the laws and justice of the country, but when the concept of his own morality or justice conflicts with the state they will gladly question ing. With this in mind, I think that Socrates will take the same action as Antigone of Sophocles of Antigone.
In a book criticized and apologized for reading by Socrates and Socrates and a critical apology, I found that Socrates was not an ordinary philosopher. Philosophers will question everything, but Socrates' method is different from most other philosophers. From one side of the road, Socrates can be considered insensitive and arrogant. Because he destroyed the law, they fulfilled their ideals, left their families, and ignored people's values. - Compliance with Socrates / Platonic's methodology and asking Euthyphro through dialogue; in particular "What is holiness?" Discussion between Socrates and Euthyphro will not yield results after unnecessary deliberation. Euthyphro's definition of different beliefs is "I am doing the faith of God" and "I honor the pleasure of God". Socrates proves that these definitions are not sufficient.
You can see two different speech styles used in Socrates' s "apology" and "criticism". In 'apology', Socrates protects himself and is trying to prove he is innocent. In "criticism", Socrates expressed his beliefs about the truth. You will find him speaking differently than he said. In "apology", Socrates uses rhetoric to convince people that he is innocent. He told everyone that people, not him, eroded the young. He interrogated the accusers. He tries to convince people that he is not an atheist by asking if one believes spiritual or semi-godly spiritual and sacred proxy. In this case, he used many methods to try to persuade the court, not speaking the whole truth, despite not lying.