Danielle Janel
asked:
Do you respect Socrates? Why or why not? Are his arguments good or bad? Which ones? Why?
To answer questions about
Apology,
please sign up.
Don
Whether Socrates is a respectable person or not depends on how much you think a person should value their own life. In Socrates' case, he values truth and virtues more than his own life, this can be seen as foolish by some. The other point people may or may not respect Socrates is that he teaches without taking fees, he thinks that taking fees is the equivalent to selling knowledge just like how prostitutes sell their body; it is also a reason why he lived poorly and cannot even afford a good amount of "bail" when he was deciding his own verdict.
About his arguments, the way that he proves himself innocent is to first reframe. He points out that the accusers are trained orators and he is not, he is also not accustomed to the court since he's never been accused before, but he has a lot of eye witness that could testify his good characters.
The second characteristic of his argument is to build it up from assumptions that even his accusers can agree on. For example, Socrates was accused of corrupting the young. The basic gist of his argument is as following: 1. If I mislead the youth 2. The youth acts in a bad way 3. The youth will harm those around him 4. Why would I want to harm myself? 5. Even if I want to, the youth would later realise I have deceived them and say so 6. List out many examples of those who don't agree.
Are they good arguments or bad arguments? I think it is a good argument in the sense that you build an argument with a premise that not even your accuser can refuse, that is a powerful way to argue. However, whether or not that argument is foolproof is another question.
About his arguments, the way that he proves himself innocent is to first reframe. He points out that the accusers are trained orators and he is not, he is also not accustomed to the court since he's never been accused before, but he has a lot of eye witness that could testify his good characters.
The second characteristic of his argument is to build it up from assumptions that even his accusers can agree on. For example, Socrates was accused of corrupting the young. The basic gist of his argument is as following: 1. If I mislead the youth 2. The youth acts in a bad way 3. The youth will harm those around him 4. Why would I want to harm myself? 5. Even if I want to, the youth would later realise I have deceived them and say so 6. List out many examples of those who don't agree.
Are they good arguments or bad arguments? I think it is a good argument in the sense that you build an argument with a premise that not even your accuser can refuse, that is a powerful way to argue. However, whether or not that argument is foolproof is another question.
About Goodreads Q&A
Ask and answer questions about books!
You can pose questions to the Goodreads community with Reader Q&A, or ask your favorite author a question with Ask the Author.
See Featured Authors Answering Questions
Learn more