Analysis Of 'The Defense Of Socrates Actions Of Corrupting The Youth'

1404 Words 6 Pages
1. The defense of Socrates actions of corrupting the youth was that he was following the laws of their god and trying to figure out what their piety means. Since the gods declared him the wisest man, thus his actions of embracing what he does not know and only searching for the truth .Therefore, his actions reflect upon the words of the gods and so actions cannot be impious. Socrates defense for his actions were indeed inadequate because he used logic as the basis of his defense and rejected all emotional appeal. Socrates provided four logical arguments to his charge of corrupting the youth. Socrates logically refutes that argument against he is the sole corrupter of the youth as absurd. He explains that one cannot be the corrupter of many …show more content…
Others may say that Socrates defense was not adequate because it lacked any emotional appeal. Socrates defense should of appeal emotionally and have been sincere would of made a stronger defense, but Socrates defense is solely based on searching for the truth and not trying to triumph the argument Thus, appealing to rhetoric would undermine himself as being a philosopher. Socrates defense is based on logic is right in the sense he is trying to reveal the truth that he is not corrupting the youth and is only searching for truth within entities.
2. Descartes argument concerning the a existence of God is a based on that knowledge a priori and that one thing he is sure of is that he is a thinking thing and for that he know he exist. In Meditation 3, he argues the idea of God is innate and placed in us by God and he rejected the possibility that the idea of God is invented or adventitious. Descartes has a clear and distinct idea of God. In the same way that the Cogito was self-evident, so too is the existence of God, as his perfect idea of a perfect being could not have been caused by anything less than a perfect
…show more content…
Descartes Rationalism claims that we have a priori knowledge of matters of fact that does not depend on experience. He argues that we gain knowledge from the fact that we know certain truths innately partly by our rational nature and we have rational intuition, which allows us to grasp certain truths logically. Descartes argument cannot be significant because self-evident concepts provide no knowledge about the world. Yet sense experience may not be sure, it offers us evidence that is as reliable as we need. Hume’s Empiricism claims that we have a posteriori knowledge and that ideas are simply a weaker version of sense of impressions. For example, the idea of the moon is not as vivid as actually looking at it. Moreover, nothing can exist in the mind without being first being experienced and or from through a blend of other experiences. Hume’s argument cannot be significant because it lacks any reason to understand how to get true knowledge from induction. As well as, it does not allow for any analytical and mathematical truths that exist in the world. Kant’s Epistemology is the union of the Rationalist and Empiricist views of knowledge. Kant believes that knowledge is a cooperative endeavor; mind relations are interactions and world relations are objects that we organize. Thus, Kant believes that our judgement can separate into synthetic and analytic; analytic judgments are a priori and synthetic judgements are a posteriori and a priori. Kant’s Epistemological

Related Documents