Gorgias And Apology Analysis

1235 Words 5 Pages
In the Gorgias and Apology Socrates presents noble statements that are not necessarily realistic. To suffer wrong rather than to do it and that nothing bad can befall a good man in either life or death are principals that Socrates believes just men live by. In reality, Socrates presents two claims that are incredibly hard to live up to. Analyzing the surface of these claims it would be easy to refute based on human nature presented by Callicles. The strongest of humans survive, to survive one must take what they deserve. A good man can receive the bad actions of others in their pursuit of survival. Socrates argument, however, is based on the quality of the soul and how it is affected. Socrates is justified in saying that he would rather suffer wrong than do wrong because he would not be corrupting his soul and would be permitting himself to practice self-mastery. This makes Socrates justified in saying no harm can befall a good man because a good man has self-mastery, therefore, has a good soul. Socrates claims that by doing wrong he would hurt himself because it would hurt his …show more content…
In the Gorgias Socrates explains the effect of self-mastery in the actions of its beholders, “the name for the states of organization and order of the soul is “lawful’ and “law,” which lead people to become law-abiding and orderly, and these are justice and self-control” (83). Since self-mastery creates a law-abiding citizen no wrong can befall a good man in terms of the laws of the city during his life. In the Apology, Socrates implies that these rules do not follow afterlife because no one knows what happens after death. Afterlife whether someone is judged based their soul, has no awareness, or their soul migrates to another place, all anyone can claim to know is that having a corrupt soul is bad. He who has self-mastery has a good soul, which is good so nothing bad can befall

Related Documents