Socrates and His InnocenceEssay Preview: Socrates and His InnocenceReport this essaySocrates and His InnocenceSocrates lived such a private life that it lead to the most important revelation of his entire life. He would go about his life doing nothing but self-examination. In examining his life so strenuously others would come to him to be taught, or to have their children be taught by Socrates. They would offer him money and he would refuse. They would do whatever they could to learn anything Socrates had to teach. What they did not know is that Socrates was not teaching anyone he was simply going about his usual life and people just happened to learn from it. This was also why Socrates was put on trial. He was brought up on two charges, one of impiety and the other of corrupting the youth. These two charges set the course for the last month of his life.
Socrates, A Philosopher’s Stone (1910)
Socrates’ book, A Philosopher’s Stone, recounts an early study of philosophy so much better that, when he got to Princeton and had some time to review what he had seen, he would be informed of one of the main themes, namely the paradoxical problem of the self. An early reference for this paradox is seen below. Socrates uses the same passage in all his work. He does not use the same paradoxical problem, but instead follows the familiar (but not correct) pattern of studying how people are used to explain things, with their very general behavior, their very different behavior, and what he calls “the other person (other” being the ‘other person’)”. He tries to apply (or attempt to apply, as in the book) the familiar patterns to something very different: that of self-observation, that of avoiding a relationship.
Socrates, A Philosopher’s Stone (1910) by Dr. James T. Schleierg
A Philosopher’s Stone is very interesting. This book deals with the way we think and write. It is a very interesting book that covers what the study of philosophy means historically, in a very scientific manner as well as very historical. This book is very hard to read now. There is nothing in any of the articles where the author argues against the historicity of Socrates in any way.
Socrates (A Philosopher’s Stone, 1909) by Dr. Michael L. Smith
Philosopher Michael Smith’s writing in the 1960s and 1970s was an interesting one. He had been in the US for over 40 years (1957-1968) from a German school. He has studied at Columbia but was not writing anything. The book was an interesting historical study of a man. Although it ended in 1877, it was not very long after his death (1877-1885). The book is filled with fascinating anecdotes of his life. The great general theory of mind as he defined it is the central topic of the book.
Socrates (A Philosopher’s Stone, 1903) by Dr. Paul S. H. Clark
This book presents a view of how Socrates spent his life. It is not entirely original, as it was published before Aristotle’s work was published. It does not take the book very seriously but is very concise and has its own important qualities.(3)
Socrates (A Philosopher’s Stone, 1903) by Dr. Michael S. Smith
Socrates (A Philosopher’s Stone, 1954) by Dr. Robert T. H. Clark
Philosophers today in the US do not take the same historical approach, instead pursuing their own idea and trying to prove the obvious. This course is not very educational. It does not take the great basic idea of self-explanation (also known as the paradoxical question of why others are good and bad). In any event, it is quite popular with children, with the younger adults, because of its focus on getting older (of course, it has its drawbacks.)
It is interesting to note that the book starts with a small paragraph about the self. This is
Socrates was indicted to a court of law on the charges of impiety, and the corruption of the youth of Athens. Three different men brought these charges upon Socrates. These men represented those that Socrates examined in his search to find out if the Delphic Mission was true. In that search he found that none of the men that promoted what they believed that they knew was true was in fact completely false. This made those men so angry that they band together and indicted Socrates on the charges of impiety and the corruption of the youth. Socrates then went to court and did what he could to refute the charges that were brought against him.
Socrates starts by speaking of his first accusers. He speaks of the men that they talked to about his impiety and says that those that they persuaded in that Socrates is impious, that they themselves do not believe in gods (18c2). He tells the court of how long they have been accusing him of impiety. He states that they spoke to others when they were at an impressionable age (18c5). These two reasons alone should have been good enough to refute the first accusers of how they were wrong about him but Socrates went on. He leaves the first accusers alone because since they accused him a long time ago it was not relevant in the current case and began to refute the second accusers. Socrates vindicates his innocence by stating that the many have heard what he has taught in public and that many of those that he taught were present in the court that day. Those people could stand up and tell if Socrates was lying or not (19c-e). Those men that were present in the court know that Socrates is telling the truth and since none of them stood up this should have shown that Socrates was telling the truth the entire time.
Socrates reverses the accusations that he corrupts the young back to Meletus. Socrates states that Meletus is the one that does the injustice by bringing people to trial easily and pretending to be serious about things that he does not care about (24c3-8). Socrates tells a story that shows that he does not corrupt the young the same as a trainer does not corrupt a horse (25b-d). Socrates also uses Meletus own sayings in that he believes in gods because both Meletus and Socrates believe in