Socrates Apology
- Thread starter kijana wa Mt.kenya
- Start date
people that charged Socrates were just afraid that his new ideas would spread to thenext generation. It is clear that socrates ideas are vastly different from theirs, but being an independent individual doesn’t mean that one should be punished by death. The main reason that Socrates is charged for “corrupting the youth of athens” is because he calls things like they are. In his speech he called out politicians and claimed that they were full of themselves
B
Before Socrates there were Sophists. This were expensive teachers who charged Athenians to teach them how to win argument especially in court. Then came Socrates whom dismantled this schooling models through his way of urging which were conducted in public places for free.
I tend to believe this where it all started. The 'Deep state' back then didn't like the change of status and devised away to get lid of the guy. Which they did.
I tend to believe this where it all started. The 'Deep state' back then didn't like the change of status and devised away to get lid of the guy. Which they did.
You copied this shit from the below site word for word including punctuntions now you feel like you are Socrates... ati stick to sex and relationships.....sit the f*ck down. Shenji.
https://www.bartleby.com/essay/The-Charges-Against-Socrates-FKJSFGAZTJ
https://www.bartleby.com/essay/The-Charges-Against-Socrates-FKJSFGAZTJ
Do things cease to exist just because you don't recognize them?
I know that wasn't the intention, but I think the allegory captured this philosophical question pretty well.
If all you can see are the shadows, and another see the entirety of reality. When you say there are nothing but shadows, you are logically coherent. When the other says the shadows are evidence of another reality, he is logically coherent.
I find this to be the case in most debates on Spiritualism. People who have validly interacted with the realm beyond the physical can't argue with those who haven't... And both are validly convinced of their deductive stations
I know that wasn't the intention, but I think the allegory captured this philosophical question pretty well.
If all you can see are the shadows, and another see the entirety of reality. When you say there are nothing but shadows, you are logically coherent. When the other says the shadows are evidence of another reality, he is logically coherent.
I find this to be the case in most debates on Spiritualism. People who have validly interacted with the realm beyond the physical can't argue with those who haven't... And both are validly convinced of their deductive stations
