In our debate, we talked about many reasons why Socrates' defense (as given in the
Apology) was good or bad. Explain how both sides of the debate could be correct. Then decide whether or not you think Socrates gave a good defense in the
Apology. Make sure to explain your reasons!
3 comments:
I think, if we use the term a "good arguement", in the sense that he accomplished the jury to vote for his aquittal, it is obvious that he failed at making a "good arguement". However, if we define a "good arguement" as explaining who he is, what he does and what he is about, he made a good arguemnt, whether or not he was convicted. I justify this statement because he told the whole truth throughout his trial, he gave anecdotes about his studying Philosophy and he tried to make sense of his actions, in perspective to the charges against him. To summarize, he identified his purpose in life and tried to illustrate, to the best of his ability, that while his actions, in the pursuit of Philosophy, might seem unusual, they are not unlawful. So, whether or not his testimony is "good", depends on how we define good.
Socrates's defense can be good and bad at the same time. In the text, Socrates explained about how he "shall not cease to practice philosophy" even if they'll kill him. This argument is good for the truth, he states how he wants to live the life of a philosopher and not be afraid of death or anything else,but it is not the kind of arguments he should be making if he wants to stay alive. So Socrates's defense is both good and bad depending on how you look at it.
-the above post belongs to Candy Lin. Forget to put my name;p
Post a Comment