Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The Apology of Socrates (Ancient Greek: Ἀπολογία Σωκράτους, Apología Sokrátous; Latin: Apologia Socratis), written by Plato, is a Socratic dialogue of the speech of legal self-defence which Socrates (469–399 BC) spoke at his trial for impiety and corruption in 399 BC.
For Socrates, to be separated from elenchus by exile (preventing him from investigating the statement) was therefore a fate worse than death. Since Socrates was religious and trusted his religious experiences, such as his guiding daimonic voice, he accordingly preferred to continue to seek the truth to the answer to his question, in the after ...
The Apology of Socrates to the Jury (Ancient Greek: Ἀπολογία Σωκράτους πρὸς τοὺς Δικαστάς), by Xenophon of Athens, is a Socratic dialogue about the legal defence that the philosopher Socrates presented at his trial for the moral corruption of Athenian youth; and for asebeia against the pantheon of Athens; judged guilty, Socrates was sentenced to death.
Socrates was one of the most renowned Greek philosophers of all time. Born in Athens circa 470 BCE, this ancient Greek philosopher laid the groundwork for Western philosophy, paving the way for ...
The Debate of Socrates and Aspasia by Nicolas-André Monsiau. Socrates's discussions were not limited to a small elite group; he engaged in dialogues with foreigners and with people from all social classes and of all genders. [77] A fundamental characteristic of Plato's Socrates is the Socratic method, or the method of refutation (elenchus). [78]
Socrates, paraphrased from Plato's Apology. Ἔνθεν μὲν Σκύλλη, ἑτέρωθι δὲ δῖα Χάρυβδις. Énthen mèn Skúllē, hetérōthi de dîa Khárubdis. "On one side lay Scylla and on the other divine Charybdis." [12]
It is set in the last hours prior to the death of Socrates, and is Plato's fourth and last dialogue to detail the philosopher's final days, following Euthyphro, Apology, and Crito. One of the main themes in the Phaedo is the idea that the soul is immortal .
Socrates, since he denied any kind of knowledge, then tried to find someone wiser than himself among politicians, poets, and craftsmen. It appeared that politicians claimed wisdom without knowledge; poets could touch people with their words, but did not know their meaning; and craftsmen could claim knowledge only in specific and narrow fields.