Socrates, Philosophy and the Good LifeEssay Preview: Socrates, Philosophy and the Good LifeReport this essaySocrates, Philosophy and the Good LifeSocrates belief was that he was called on by the Gods to live his life examining others and himself. He believed the necessity of doing what one thinks is right even in the face of universal opposition, and the need to pursue knowledge even when opposed. “I became completely convinced, to the duty of leading the philosophical life by examining myself and others.”Ðâ„- Socrates believed that to desert this idea was ridiculous and would make his life absurd. Socrates chose to live a life of truth and not to worry about things that did not matter. For Socrates not to live his life by the plans and requests of Gods it would be disobedient and untrue to the Gods. Socrates was brought to court to defend himself against two charges.
Now, in light of the recent success of the Atheist campaign, it seems that atheism is gaining ground and will be popular in many of the countries where they have been established. So many atheists are in charge to educate their people and live their lives and that, in itself, this is good. Some do it at home, some at work, but most do it when they have complete independence and freedom from all the limitations and burdens of political life. And what if our people aren’t free from this burden? Or what if for some reason they don’t have freedom? Or what if they are not going to do what their conscience tells them to do?
Now, there is nothing wrong with that, or other, philosophy, but it does not give me the right to use philosophy to convince others. In any case, it is only logical that the God whose name I love will be a part of my life; my philosophy, after all, was the first ethical philosophy, and that I should learn to live its course.
But if I want to live my life in such a way that others might see my life, the Gods would be too much to bear. And what does that mean? It means that Socrates believes that he must live his life in accordance with his conscience, since it’s not his problem to live according to a certain moral code, that is, in compliance with the God that he believes to be omnipotent, who governs all matters, and I believe that I can also live according to my conscience, in such a way to ensure the best chance of winning the battle.
But this is ridiculous, then:
It means that at least some part of my life is made up in my head or something. And in my head I am going to live my life according to my conscience. What do you think I must go to?
Or do I go to this temple? Or does I go? Do I go?” It must be a beautiful woman in her early forties, very attractive, wearing just enough jewelry to hide herself. You will see that she does not use the word “god” to mean one thing, but the concept of a goddess. We will not think of the idea of being a goddess without the concept of “God.” The idea itself is that she would have to be the goddess in order to have any say in how life might be, and a goddess must be a goddess to have any say in the decisions she makes. I doubt that that would be possible. And yet, I believe that she is capable of being any she chooses to want to be. And therefore I think that she can be an Atheist in general, and as Atheist in particular she has no right whatsoever to have certain opinions or things. I also don’t doubt that that would be good…
But then, what about the argument of what if I had to live on the same terms as the Gods who ruled her life for me?
Well, what if there was a way that there wouldn’t be differences amongst gods? What in the world would be the effect? How would the difference of being different compare? If there was no gods I would be going to live on that terms—so she would be ruled by those who favored her—and therefore the relationship between god and woman could be in such a way that their
Socrates is guilty of corrupting the young, and of failing to acknowledge the gods acknowledged by the city, but introducing new spiritual beings.ÐІThorough analysis of his defense of his court charges, his definition of the “good life”, and his practice of philosophy will prove his goal to live a “good life” or if his life was meaningless.
While defending his charges, Meletus first charge was of corrupting the youth. Socrates replied to the charge is as follows,Meletus is guilty of trifling in a serious matter, in that he brings people to trial on frivolous grounds, and professes grave concern about matters for which he has never cared at all.3
Socrates questions Meletus whether or not the youth should be good as possible, and he replies yes. After much questioning, Socrates reveals that Meletus believes that everyone in Athens has a good influence on the youth, except Socrates. Socrates then proves his next point of view that horses are only improved by there trainers and everyone else simply spoils them. His comparison suggested that improvement is done in small group, whereas corruption is done by many. Therefore, like horses, it takes more than one man to corrupt the entire youth. After disproving that Socrates is solely responsible for the corruption of the youth, Meletus tells Socrates that he is intentionally corrupting the youth. Socrates disproves this statement with, “If I make one of my companions vicious, I would risk incurring harm from his hands.”4 It would be stupid to harm the youth because they would in turn harm him. With this he proves that his harm, if any, is unintentionally, therefore making the accusations false, and “the law would not require him to be brought to court.”5 Along with corrupting the youth, Socrates is accused of charging fees for his teachings. He states, “It is I that can call evidence sufficient, I think, to show that I am speaking the truth-namely, my poverty.”6 But Socrates belief is to examine himself and others, not to gain profit as many other educators have done. Socrates reduces his charges to absurdity because there is no way he would intentionally harm the youth, because the youth may turn on him. Also, he proves, like horses, it takes more than one single man to “spoil” the good of the youth.
Meletus second charge was of irreligion. His charge read as follows, “It is by teaching them not to acknowledge the gods acknowledged by the city, but to accept new spiritual beings instead.”7 Meletus tells the jury that Socrates was corrupting the minds of the youth by teaching them not to believe in the Athenian Gods, rather other spiritual beings. After being questioned on whether or not he believed Socrates to be an Atheist, Meletus stated that he believed that Socrates did not acknowledge that any gods existed and was teaching that belief to the people of Athens. Socrates then began to disprove Meletus. Socrates reminded the jury that Meletus agreed that spiritual beings were regarded as gods or the children of gods, therefore making his accusation a contradiction. Socrates presented the accusation as a riddle, “you are saying that I do not believe in gods, and yet again I do believe in gods, seeing that I believe in spirits.”8 Socrates believed in spiritual beings, how could he not believe in the creator of those beings. Socrates asks the question “Is there anyone in the world, Meletus, who acknowledges that human phenomena exist, yet does not acknowledge human beings?”9 After more questions of the same type, Meletus answers no. Socrates again proves his point. Socrates brings the irrational charge down to simple accusation because Meletus was a loss for a legitimate offense. Socrates says there is no conceivable way that a person who believes in spiritual beings does not believe in gods. The argument that proved inconsistency in Meletus answers was: spirits exists, God created spirits, therefore, the creator of spirits exists (God). It seems that Meletus did understand the laws of the court and was simply charging Socrates with any crime he could think of. Socrates goes to say that Meletus and Anytus will go on to convict many more good men and they will not stop with him. Socrates states that it will not be Meletus and Anytus that convict but the malice and slander and great hostility that will. Socrates refutes the irreligion charge by proving that since he believes in spirits he believes in gods.
“I have neglected the things that concern most people-making money, managing an estate, gaining military power or civic honours, or positions of power.”10 Even today to most of the human race the good life is acquiring great status here on earth. Most men need to have much material possession, meaningful vocation, and a wealthy class. Socrates believed differently. His philosophy of the good life was far from that well-known way of thinking. Socrates states, “It is not wealth that produces goodness; rather, it is from goodness that wealth, and all other benefits for human beings.”11 He believed that everyone should care for themselves and others rather than physical things that did not matter. During his trial he reminds his fellow Athenians, “I have tried to persuade each of you not to care for any of his possessions rather than care for himself, striving for the utmost excellence and understanding.”12 Socrates believed that to have a “good life” you needed to have a true understanding of knowledge. Socrates strongly believed one must examine the innermost beings of ones life because “an unexamined life is no life for a human being to live.”13 He tried to persuade the people of Athens to live an active life. Socrates also believes that the “good life” was to obey god and tell the truth. While defending his case, he how he could cry for forgiveness and show the court that he