Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Apology of Socrates to the Jury (Ancient Greek: Ἀπολογία Σωκράτους πρὸς τοὺς Δικαστάς), by Xenophon of Athens, is a Socratic dialogue about the legal defence that the philosopher Socrates presented at his trial for the moral corruption of Athenian youth; and for asebeia against the pantheon of Athens; judged guilty, Socrates was sentenced to death.
Crito (/ ˈ k r aɪ t oʊ / KRY-toh or / ˈ k r iː t oʊ / KREE-toh; Ancient Greek: Κρίτων) is a dialogue written by the ancient Greek philosopher Plato.It depicts a conversation between Socrates and his wealthy friend Crito of Alopece regarding justice (δικαιοσύνη), injustice (ἀδικία), and the appropriate response to injustice.
On Justice (Ancient Greek: Περὶ Δικαίου; Latin: De Justo [1]) is a Socratic dialogue that was once thought to be the work of Plato. [2] In the short dialogue, Socrates discusses with a friend questions about what is just and unjust. [3]
The Apology of Socrates, by the philosopher Plato (429–347 BC), was one of many explanatory apologiae about Socrates's legal defence against accusations of corruption and impiety; most apologiae were published in the decade after the Trial of Socrates (399 BC). [5] As such, Plato's Apology of Socrates is an early philosophic defence of ...
The Trial of Socrates (399 BC) was held to determine the philosopher's guilt of two charges: asebeia against the pantheon of Athens, and corruption of the youth of the city-state; the accusers cited two impious acts by Socrates: "failing to acknowledge the gods that the city acknowledges" and "introducing new deities".
There are four works of Xenophon that deal with Socrates. They are Apology of Socrates to the Jurors (which apparently reports the defence given by Socrates in court), [11] [12] Memorabilia (which is a defence of Socrates and so-called Socratic dialogues), [11] Oeconomicus (which concerns Socrates' encounter with Ischomachus and Critobulus), [12] and Symposium (which recounts an evening at a ...
This is the view accepted by Socrates and Euthyphro in Plato's dialogue. The Mu'tazilah school of Islamic theology also defended the view (with, for example, Nazzam maintaining that God is powerless to engage in injustice or lying), [ 4 ] as did the Islamic philosopher Averroes . [ 5 ]
Euthyphro seems unsure as to what the question means and so Socrates applies a dialectic technique: an analogy, to clarify his question (10a). He persuades Euthyphro to agree that when we call a thing "carried", it is simply because it is being carried by someone and not because it possesses an inherent characteristic, which could be called ...