Plato's Republic and Apology of Socrates

Plato’s prominent the Republic dialogue is extensively read out from the mid-nineteenth century. Socrates happens to be themed as the key character. It clearly stipulates how the Socrates’s position concerning, eudemonia (contentment) in contrast to justice. Questions that rise from this argument are; what justice entails? How is it related to satisfaction? Socrates respond to these questions with two different views, political footings in communities and in terms of human being’s personalities.

Socrates further get the urge to explain that it’s an individual’s wish to do just, instead of unjust doings. This is rendered problematic by Plato since it only considers the just individual to possess a soul that is balanced. Plato argues that, Socrates does not consider enthralling reasons that include an individual with a just, balanced soul can cease from conventionally acts thought to be considered unjust for instance acts like adultery, murder or theft. Consequently, Plato portrays Socrates upholding psychological wellbeing instead of justice.

Plato clearly points out a case is judged by a jury that was not there when a crime was committed but entirely, make a judgement according to peoples accounts. In addition Socrates had his own defence for the crime of corruption and impiety. His transgression is not believing in the gods that the city worshiped and corrupting the undeveloped members of the society. He further adds on the city of Athens felt infiltration that gave a death verdict to a man who even on the face of death was clearly fearless, humble, smart, self-assured, ironic, and proud and so much more.

His sentencing was not on a fair ground given Meletus, Lycon and Anytus his three main accusers, accusations don’t really make perfect sense. For instance Meletus accusing him of not worshipping a god but believing in false gods is really out of context. It’s a person will to believe in certain god(s) and if one preaches about it it’s up to the listener to take as gospel truth and believe it or not. Corruption allegations, Socrates on his defence stated that it is not on an individuals will to corrupt another mind knowingly, turning them to a worse individual, which in turn will make them a worse character to be around with. He clearly points out that, this is something he would not want, for what purpose.

Socrates was astounded when he found out Chaerephon a friend of his, settled on the idea that there is no wiser man than him in the city, an answer he got after questioning Delphic Oracle. He later decided to go round the city questioning people about the same he knew his level of arrogance and thus did not consider himself wisest. He wanted to make people understand the range of their abilities, instead he realised they did not understand what they what they were talking about due arrogance, he pointed it out, naturally people got offended and he termed unpopular to them for exposing what truth he saw. He goes on with his mission throughout the city, taking and educating anyone who would care to lend him his ear for philosophical growth.

During his trial Socrates does an unusual act, instead of pleading for mercy he rather asks them to reign check there lives and change their lust for money, fame, power and status. He urges every one present and the jury to long for reformed lives that have a meaning and moral that make their soul just and quality. Instead of pleading for his life, he tells them he is a gift to them as a city from god for helping them self-actualise and be more critical to self. This is a moral lesson to leaders to have a better driving on their regimes rather than accumulating wealth on the expense of their people’s well-being.

Socrates was a poor man, whose lifestyle impacted the city. He was not interested in politics or money. All he desired is self-actualisation of other people. Philosophical discussions made him happy he knew people will gain from them one way or another even though he lived in poverty doing this. When a vote is made by the jury that comprised of 501 citizens of the city, proposing death penalty expecting Socrates to apologise and consider exile rather. He did not do so, he decided not to play their game, and instead he told them there decision does not hinder him for following the path of truth. He only seeks well-being of his three sons to lead a life of ethics.

In conclusion, Socrates view of philosophy of life totally contradicts with his city. Their views are no aligned and there understanding is different. Accusing him of blasphemy when he tells them he is a gift that translate to a simple meaning of having a drive of life, not about a life full of money or lust for power. But all about a life that has a balance with the soul and proper ethics. Reconciling will be difficult, unless people change their mind set and be open to new revolutionary philosophical mind sets.