A Critique Of The Arguments In Plato's Apology '

To begin, in philosophy one must possess the ability to identify, translate, and critique the arguments in Plato’s Five Dialogues. With this possession, in Plato’s Apology (29A) the source of a philosophical issue can surely be evaluated. One’s goal is to reconnoiter the argument through worthy logical reasoning and thus, formulate a position that considers the argument’s validity. Now, with Plato’s Apology 29A, it is sought out that death is evil due to the factor of thinking one is wise, when one is not. Furthermore, comprehending death is the degree of controlling evil, one must argue that death is not always evil, but instead it is predetermined by an individual’s life. Ultimately, Socrates is wrong when reflecting on death as evil through knowing what happens after a life passes, when in fact; death is distributed and not fully saturated in the life one lives and the unknown is a bottomless …show more content…
Explaining this chart starts with the context of Platos' Apology, "To fear death, gentlemen, is no other than to think oneself wise when one is not, to think one knows what ones does not know. No one knows whether death may not be the greatest of all blessings for a man, yet men fear it as if they knew that it is the greatest of evils. And surely it is the most blameworthy ignorance to believe that one knows what one does not know" (29A). In simpler terms, the fear of death (F) yield one thinking they know something (T), when in actuality they do not know (~K). If one thinks they know but they do not know (T^~K) then that invites blamable ignorance (B). Therefore, the fear of death invites blamable ignorance (B). To follow, the third premise (T^~K) is incorrect making the conclusion not false, allowing for a validated argument. Plato wants to explore this issue through logical reasoning and formulating a