The Last Days Of Socrates Death Analysis

Decent Essays
“The philosopher avoids suicide but welcomes death” (Plato, 2003, p. 120). Such is Socrates resolve when his own death approaches in The Last Days of Socrates. However, there is a difference between welcoming death and accepting it. While the former is a friendly greeting of sorts to something forthcoming and largely disagreeable, the latter is an acute feeling of indifference that indicates a keenness, if not apathy, for the blunt eradication of a life. And yet, both sentiments do not come close to the line that one might call suicide. Whether Socrates welcomes death, accepts it, or brings it onto himself, these maneuvers vary immensely from the symptoms that would imbricate suicidal tendencies- that distinction being in its properties.
Indeed,
…show more content…
Thus, he should be compensated for his service. In some way, at least, this is implicitly true. But the manner in which this appeal was proposed is wholly unnecessary, especially in the context whereas the court is entreating him for suggestions on his punitive correction. Therefore, it does not come as a surprise when he is put to death. Nonetheless, Socrates does not “ask for it”. What Socrates did is similar to a child talking back to his or her elders. It is a consequence of being a critical thinker as well as being a form of self-defense (Jennings). When a higher position of authority is placed in front of a person, it is human nature to defend one’s self relentlessly, even when that person knows intuitively that he or she risks making the situation worse (Gavin). Self-defense in general results in this, and is qualitatively the opposite of suicide. One might say Socrates condemned himself but one could also blame the court for convicting an innocent man (Plato, 2003, p. …show more content…
“Crito” and the beginning parts of “Phaedo” portray Socrates as somebody who has entirely “given up” on life. A plan of escape is presented to Socrates in full confidence- to clarify, “confidence” in both connotations meaning the plan was more or less fool-proof too- and still, he refuses. His foundation, in this case, is for altruistic reasons. Escaping would be unjust, he tells Crito, and so would injure his soul. This justification is hard to believe for some readers considering that he argued against the existence of definite definitions of just and unjust and a professional in knowledge of all their features so profusely in “Euthyphro”. Additionally, by his demise, the world would be void of his philosophical contributions that he has convinced himself he should be remunerated for. Of itself, this outcome would be unjust. Socrates sustains this rationale, nevertheless. He gives “… that the really important thing is not to live but to live well”; also, “…to live well amounts to the same thing as to live honourably and justly” (Plato, 2003, p. 87). Crito agrees to this resolution as it is true to a degree. Despite that, in this circumstance, it is scarcely substantial. At this point, readers truly question the possibility that Socrates is suicidal. Howbeit, the conjecture is flawed as suicide and “giving up” on life have two very conflicting objectives.

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    40a-b). Socrates clearly knows that his combative defense would not help him receive an acquittal; near the end of his speech he states that the lack of pandering to the jury in his speech resulted in his conviction (Plato. 38-d-e). Yet he uses the logic that his daimon remained silent to validate his belief that he defended himself in the proper way. In his mind, if there had been a more appropriate way to defend himself, Socrates’ daimon would have warned him away from the defense he employed.…

    • 995 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    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.” This is a quote from the Apology of Socrates. I understand we can not fear something that we do not know or understand, but also, isn't it allowed to fear the unknown? I do not agree with Socrates when he says we are not allowed to fear something that is unknown or something that we have no knowledge of. The only thing I agree with Socrates is when he talks about not knowing if death is good or evil.…

    • 458 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    42a). This final statement is ironic because it is clear which of these is the better thing in Socrates case; as a result of living an examined life, and because the “unexamined life is not worth living for a human being,” Socrates has lived his life to the fullest extent by being a paradigm of virtue for the men of Athens in a society that does not want to hear the truth (Apo.…

    • 764 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    This notion extends also to the mortal finality of the case; if Socrates truly is guilty, even though he believes he is not, then receiving his punishment is still a better outcome for him than getting away free of consequence. Further, the reality of Meletus and Anytus falsely accusing Socrates and not facing legal repercussions condemns them to a worse fate in Socrates’ opinion than Socrates himself, even if he is wrongly accused and punished. Perhaps the most important results, however, are those related to the absolute finality of the case – those related to the end of Socrates’ mortality. Socrates – believing in the gods despite the accusations for which he is sentenced to death that he does not believe in the them – thinks that, regardless of the verdict that the mortal assembly presiding over his case decides upon, the final judges he will encounter will find that he is innocent. Socrates thoroughly believes that he has lived a just and good life (which he devoted a significant portion of his ἀπολογία explaining and attempting to prove) and that, as such, the demigods that judge him after his death will render a verdict which reflects…

    • 848 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Or is better to say that Justice is indefinable and unsolvable, and that is beyond human understanding? Plato and Socrates imparted their noble wisdom so that we were better off in life. If they would be still around, they would be disillusioned to see our state of deterioration. They endeavored us to be in harmony with our souls. Indeed, things, people, and ideas have changed, except…

    • 703 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    For Socrates knows that Simonides would not agree that a crazy man should be given his weapon back simply because the weapon belong to the man. Socrates knows that Simonides must have a motive for reasoning and must mean something else, something that maybe Socrates cannot understand. Polemarchus then tries to explain to Socrates that what Simonides really meant is that the friends should only do well to each other, and not hurt each other. So then Socrates questions Polermarchus again and asks him if that means that if Simonides also mean that you should do harm to your enemies. Polermarchus says that that’s exactly what Simonides means and again Socrates does not agree with this definition of justice.…

    • 1313 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Plato’s “Apology” examines the trial of a great philosopher named Socrates. He is brought to court because of corrupting the youth and not believing in Gods. In response against his accusers, Socrates maintains that being sentenced to death is a possibility. While others fear death, as it is an evil; he does not fear it as he views death positively. According to Socrates, death is an advantage.…

    • 1157 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    His refutation of Cephulas’s claim was less convincing than Polemarchus’s in my opinion because he only used one isolated example as opposed to Polemarchus’s claim where a serious societal point was made. Socrates’s example of an insane man asking you to return his weapon was a convincing rebuttle of Cephulas’s definition of justice that one must tell the truth and repay one’s debts. Personally, I would have found this objection more convincing had Socrates backed it up with a more detailed discussion because by just using this very specific example it seems as though he doesn’t really have much of an opinion and is just trying to be difficult. Even if it was a very convenient example, it was convincing nonetheless because it highlights the rigidness of Cephalus’s argument. I found Socrates’s objection to Polemarchus’s definition more convincing because he questions a common belief among many people that to be just you must help your friends and harm your enemies no matter what.…

    • 1036 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    This can be compared to the side of an individual who is a non-philosopher as he or she fears death only if there is something which is worse than it. It is evident from research that philosophers do not work on tit for tat as they aim at making sure that what they exchange is guided by wisdom as they advocate for truthiness. It is through this wisdom that they have cleansed the impurities which can be contained within their bodily life hence enabling them to be in a good position for making a good preparation among the gods and for the afterlife which is exalted (Romero, 41). Through this Socrates explains the reason why philosophers do not fear death as they are prepared for it by any means through making sure they remain clean and…

    • 1433 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Justice to the Jury In the Apology, Plato characterizes Socrates to be wise and concerning for men’s souls. Throughout the defense Socrates claims that the jurors can kill him, but they cannot harm him. He believes that if they jurors convict him, they would be harming themselves because they are tainting their souls by ignoring the truth. Socrates’ arguments for these claims are cogent because Socrates centers his arguments on the fact that truth and justice is not truly defined and that man must constantly reflect upon his thoughts to clearly define these qualities. Socrates begins his defense by proclaiming to the jury that he speaks the truth in order to help society.…

    • 909 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays

Related Topics