“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.
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.