What do you think?
Rate this book
賲丨丕讴賲賴鈥屰� 爻賯乇丕胤: 丕賵鬲蹖賮乇賵賳貙 丿賮丕毓蹖賴鈥屰� 爻賯乇丕胤貙 讴乇蹖鬲賵賳
丕蹖賳 賲丨丕讴賲賴 乇丕 賲丕 丕夭 卮賴丕丿鬲 丿賵 賲乇蹖丿 賴賲鈥屫关地� 爻賯乇丕胤 賲蹖鈥屫促嗀ж驰屬�: 丕賮賱丕胤賵賳 賵 诏夭賳賮賵賳貙 讴賴 丕賵 賴賲 蹖讴 芦丿賮丕毓蹖賴禄蹖 爻賯乇丕胤 賳賵卮鬲賴 丕爻鬲貙 賵 亘賴 賯丿乇 讴賮丕蹖鬲 賲鬲賮丕賵鬲 亘丕 賳賵卮鬲賴鈥屰� 丕賮賱丕胤賵賳. 丕蹖賳 鬲賮丕賵鬲 亘蹖卮鬲乇 亘賴 丿賱蹖賱 亘乇鬲乇蹖 丕乇夭卮鈥屬囏й� 丕丿亘蹖鈥屫ж� 丕爻鬲 鬲丕 丕乇夭卮鈥屬囏й� 鬲丕乇蹖禺蹖鈥屫ж�. 爻賴 诏賮鬲鈥屬堏堐屰� 讴賴 丿乇 丕蹖賳鈥屫� 诏乇丿 丌賲丿賴貙 爻賴 賳賵卮鬲賴鈥屫й� 賴爻鬲賳丿 讴賴 亘丕 賮丕蹖丿賵賳 亘賴 丌禺乇蹖賳 乇賵夭賴丕蹖 爻賯乇丕胤 丕禺鬲氐丕氐 倬蹖丿丕 讴乇丿賴鈥屫з嗀�. 賲丨丕讴賲賴 賵 賲丨讴賵賲蹖鬲蹖 讴賴 丿乇 倬蹖 丌賲丿 賵 賲乇诏鈥屫ж� 乇丕 乇賯賲 夭丿 賵 蹖讴 賲丕賴 亘毓丿 亘丕 賳賵卮蹖丿賳 噩丕賲 夭賴乇 亘賴 丕賳噩丕賲 乇爻蹖丿. 爻賯乇丕胤 丿賮丕毓蹖賴 蹖丕 丌倬賵賱賵跇蹖 乇丕 丿乇 亘乇丕亘乇 賯丕囟蹖鈥屬囏й屫� 亘蹖丕賳 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀�.
丕賮賱丕胤賵賳 亘丕 丕丨鬲乇丕賲 亘賴 卮讴賱 丕蹖賳 爻禺賳乇丕賳蹖 賵 亘丕 丕丨鬲乇丕賲 诏匕丕卮鬲賳 亘賴 賲丨鬲賵丕蹖 賲丨鬲賲賱 丌賳貙 丌賳 乇丕 亘丕 賳賵毓蹖 爻鬲丕蹖卮 賵丕賯毓蹖 賳爻亘鬲 亘賴 丕爻鬲丕丿卮 賳賵卮鬲賴 丕爻鬲. 丕賵鬲蹖賮乇賵賳 讴賲蹖 亘毓丿 丕夭 丌倬賵賱賵跇蹖 賳賵卮鬲賴 卮丿貙 丌賳 賴賲 亘丕 賴丿賮 亘賴 鬲氐賵蹖乇 丿乇丌賵乇丿賳 鬲賯賵丕蹖 賵丕賯毓蹖 賵 毓賲蹖賯 爻賯乇丕胤 賵 亘蹖賴賵丿诏蹖 鬲賴賲鬲鈥屬囏й屰� 讴賴 亘乇 囟丿 丕賵 丕亘乇丕夭 卮丿賴 亘賵丿. 爻乇 丌禺乇貙 讴乇蹖鬲賵賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丕蹖賳 鬲氐賵蹖乇 賮蹖賱爻賵賮 乇丕 亘丕 賳卮丕賳 丿丕丿賳 丕丨鬲乇丕賲 丕賵 亘賴 賯賵丕賳蹖賳 卮賴乇蹖 讴賴 禺賵丿 卮丕賴丿 亘賴鈥屬堌堌� 丌賲丿賳 丌賳 亘賵丿 賭賭 蹖毓賳蹖 卮賴乇 丌鬲賳 賭賭 讴丕賲賱 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀�.
丕賮賱丕胤賵賳 亘丕 丕丨鬲乇丕賲 亘賴 卮讴賱 丕蹖賳 爻禺賳乇丕賳蹖 賵 亘丕 丕丨鬲乇丕賲 诏匕丕卮鬲賳 亘賴 賲丨鬲賵丕蹖 賲丨鬲賲賱 丌賳貙 丌賳 乇丕 亘丕 賳賵毓蹖 爻鬲丕蹖卮 賵丕賯毓蹖 賳爻亘鬲 亘賴 丕爻鬲丕丿卮 賳賵卮鬲賴 丕爻鬲. 丕賵鬲蹖賮乇賵賳 讴賲蹖 亘毓丿 丕夭 丌倬賵賱賵跇蹖 賳賵卮鬲賴 卮丿貙 丌賳 賴賲 亘丕 賴丿賮 亘賴 鬲氐賵蹖乇 丿乇丌賵乇丿賳 鬲賯賵丕蹖 賵丕賯毓蹖 賵 毓賲蹖賯 爻賯乇丕胤 賵 亘蹖賴賵丿诏蹖 鬲賴賲鬲鈥屬囏й屰� 讴賴 亘乇 囟丿 丕賵 丕亘乇丕夭 卮丿賴 亘賵丿. 爻乇 丌禺乇貙 讴乇蹖鬲賵賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丕蹖賳 鬲氐賵蹖乇 賮蹖賱爻賵賮 乇丕 亘丕 賳卮丕賳 丿丕丿賳 丕丨鬲乇丕賲 丕賵 亘賴 賯賵丕賳蹖賳 卮賴乇蹖 讴賴 禺賵丿 卮丕賴丿 亘賴鈥屬堌堌� 丌賲丿賳 丌賳 亘賵丿 賭賭 蹖毓賳蹖 卮賴乇 丌鬲賳 賭賭 讴丕賲賱 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀�.
121 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 401
1,758 people are currently reading
55.3k people want to read
About the author
Plato
4,523听books8,109听followersPlato (Greek: 螤位维蟿蝇谓), born Aristocles (c.鈥�427 鈥� 348 BC), was an ancient Greek philosopher of the Classical period who is considered a foundational thinker in Western philosophy and an innovator of the written dialogue and dialectic forms. He raised problems for what became all the major areas of both theoretical philosophy and practical philosophy, and was the founder of the Platonic Academy, a philosophical school in Athens where Plato taught the doctrines that would later become known as Platonism.
Plato's most famous contribution is the theory of forms (or ideas), which has been interpreted as advancing a solution to what is now known as the problem of universals. He was decisively influenced by the pre-Socratic thinkers Pythagoras, Heraclitus, and Parmenides, although much of what is known about them is derived from Plato himself.
Along with his teacher Socrates, and Aristotle, his student, Plato is a central figure in the history of philosophy. Plato's entire body of work is believed to have survived intact for over 2,400 years鈥攗nlike that of nearly all of his contemporaries. Although their popularity has fluctuated, they have consistently been read and studied through the ages. Through Neoplatonism, he also greatly influenced both Christian and Islamic philosophy. In modern times, Alfred North Whitehead famously said: "the safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato."
Plato's most famous contribution is the theory of forms (or ideas), which has been interpreted as advancing a solution to what is now known as the problem of universals. He was decisively influenced by the pre-Socratic thinkers Pythagoras, Heraclitus, and Parmenides, although much of what is known about them is derived from Plato himself.
Along with his teacher Socrates, and Aristotle, his student, Plato is a central figure in the history of philosophy. Plato's entire body of work is believed to have survived intact for over 2,400 years鈥攗nlike that of nearly all of his contemporaries. Although their popularity has fluctuated, they have consistently been read and studied through the ages. Through Neoplatonism, he also greatly influenced both Christian and Islamic philosophy. In modern times, Alfred North Whitehead famously said: "the safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,468 reviews
December 4, 2024
Plato reports Socrates' plea during his trial here. Despite a brilliant defense, Socrates cannot fight the main accusation, which is to corrupt the youth by making them think and question a form of immutability in power and beliefs. If minds change, it threatens stability; therefore, it is urgent to silence this teaching. This teaching is a great lesson to learn when everything seems to present itself to us as an economic necessity and always for the good of the community; thinking would harm the stability of the rulers still today?
June 12, 2012
When he was tried, convicted and ordered to death in 399 B.C.E., Socrates was already seventy years old: he had lived through the imperialistic spread of Athenian democracy and culture under Pericles, twenty-five years of first cold and then heated war with Sparta, the defeat of Athens in 404 B.C.E., the short-lived oligarchy imposed on that city by the Spartans, and finally the reestablishment of democracy in his homeland. During all of that time, the former bricklayer was known for practicing philosophy in the public spaces of Athens using his inimitable style of questioning those in authority who feigned virtue and wisdom while in reality lacking it. This technique gradually garnered him many powerful enemies who did their best to poison public opinion against him.
Socrates was often confused with the Sophists, traveling teachers who sought to satisfy the public need for higher education generated by a democracy in which any male citizen could be called upon to serve in courts or assemblies. But Socrates was ostensibly not interested in teaching per se: his aim was to uncover the lack of virtue, honesty and wisdom in those around him and to encourage them to learn, as virtue is knowledge, and once one knows what is right, truly knows it, one is no longer capable of doing wrong. He often obliquely criticized democratic systems, and indeed, the power consolidation democracy afford the majority was exactly what did him in.
While Plato has only reported Socrates鈥� words (and a few said by Meletus, one of his accusers), we do get a filtered idea of the sort of argument the prosecution was making: democracy had only recently been restored in Athens, and certain elements of the population, probably motivated, as Socrates claims, by years of resentment toward the philosopher, wanted to brand his sort of 鈥渢eaching鈥� (for despite his claims to the contrary, he was indeed teaching by example, at the very least) as destructive to the democratic institutions that Socrates himself often seemed to oppose (as evidenced in his Dialogues, which Plato also transcribed).
But the prosecution is largely silent, and we can more clearly analyze what Socrates does. Throughout his defense he employs a disingenuousness that likely irked his opponents: he begins by assuming a humble excuse-my-illiteracy sort of stance, and gradually abdicates all responsibility for the message he is putting across (i.e., authority figures are hypocritical boobs), by appealing to a deus ex machina device (the oracle鈥檚 decree and god鈥檚 voice in his ear). However, there is considerable nobility and courage in his refusal to kowtow to the Assembly鈥檚 expectations that he鈥檒l beg for mercy, and his dissection of the trumped-up charges is perfectly executed.
The shift in tone after he鈥檚 been found guilty is interesting: no longer is the prosecution the brunt of his surgical, nearly sarcastic grandstanding: those voting against him catch it full on as he with great guts demands to be rewarded for 鈥渃orrupting鈥� the youth of Athens the way winners in the Olympics were. His withering prophecies to all of Athens after he鈥檚 been sentenced to death indicate a third tone shift, short-lived as it is. He finally becomes introspective with his friends as the document closes, and his inspiring advice and requests serve as telling indicators of his real personality (as opposed to his philosopher persona): someone who loved his family and neighbors so much that he was willing to risk his life to make them good people.
Socrates was often confused with the Sophists, traveling teachers who sought to satisfy the public need for higher education generated by a democracy in which any male citizen could be called upon to serve in courts or assemblies. But Socrates was ostensibly not interested in teaching per se: his aim was to uncover the lack of virtue, honesty and wisdom in those around him and to encourage them to learn, as virtue is knowledge, and once one knows what is right, truly knows it, one is no longer capable of doing wrong. He often obliquely criticized democratic systems, and indeed, the power consolidation democracy afford the majority was exactly what did him in.
While Plato has only reported Socrates鈥� words (and a few said by Meletus, one of his accusers), we do get a filtered idea of the sort of argument the prosecution was making: democracy had only recently been restored in Athens, and certain elements of the population, probably motivated, as Socrates claims, by years of resentment toward the philosopher, wanted to brand his sort of 鈥渢eaching鈥� (for despite his claims to the contrary, he was indeed teaching by example, at the very least) as destructive to the democratic institutions that Socrates himself often seemed to oppose (as evidenced in his Dialogues, which Plato also transcribed).
But the prosecution is largely silent, and we can more clearly analyze what Socrates does. Throughout his defense he employs a disingenuousness that likely irked his opponents: he begins by assuming a humble excuse-my-illiteracy sort of stance, and gradually abdicates all responsibility for the message he is putting across (i.e., authority figures are hypocritical boobs), by appealing to a deus ex machina device (the oracle鈥檚 decree and god鈥檚 voice in his ear). However, there is considerable nobility and courage in his refusal to kowtow to the Assembly鈥檚 expectations that he鈥檒l beg for mercy, and his dissection of the trumped-up charges is perfectly executed.
The shift in tone after he鈥檚 been found guilty is interesting: no longer is the prosecution the brunt of his surgical, nearly sarcastic grandstanding: those voting against him catch it full on as he with great guts demands to be rewarded for 鈥渃orrupting鈥� the youth of Athens the way winners in the Olympics were. His withering prophecies to all of Athens after he鈥檚 been sentenced to death indicate a third tone shift, short-lived as it is. He finally becomes introspective with his friends as the document closes, and his inspiring advice and requests serve as telling indicators of his real personality (as opposed to his philosopher persona): someone who loved his family and neighbors so much that he was willing to risk his life to make them good people.
December 3, 2024
"No man who goes to war with you or any other multitude, honestly struggling against the commission of unrighteousness and wrong in the state, will save his life."
How wise Socrates was when he uttered these words over 2000 years ago. Nothing much has changed since. The disinterested truth and justice seeker is always the enemy of the state. In every state, the persons who stimulate the mind of the populace are viewed as dangerous. If people start thinking for themselves, it is not easy for rulers to fool them. If the governing body is incompetent and is concerned only in their welfare and not of the people, and is governing the land through unjust laws, people will question, argue, and in extremity, will resort to violent actions against the government to secure their rights and establish justice. But no government wishes for this. They would very much like the populace to be kept in the dark, and anyone who wishes to throw light will be considered dangerous and will be duly persecuted. And this is what happened to Socrates. He may be a great philosopher of the day, but he was a danger to the Athenian rulers, who were an incompetent lot. And they promptly decided that to save their skin, Socrates must be out of the way. Hence the trial; and the subsequent death penalty silenced the great man forever.
The Trial and Death of Socrates, although focused on the indictment that brought Socrates before the Athenian courts, Socrates's defense, the unjust conviction, and his final days in prison, also discusses Socrates's philosophy in many subjects. This compilation consists of four dialogues: Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, and Phaedo. Euthyphro set the introduction to the events that followed by opening the dialogue as to what is pious, for one of the main accusations against Socrates was his disbelief in the accepted Athenian diety. The two dialogues, Euthyphro and Apology, make it clear that the prevalent ideas on piety advocated by the Sophists and that of Socrates tread on contrary grounds. It is then not surprising that Socrates is condemned as an atheist. However, Socrates knows that this is not the true cause of his condemnation. Through his philosophical teachings, he was stimulating the young minds towards achieving virtue and goodness against money and reputation which didn't sit well with the governing bodies and majority of society who were advocates of material wealth and reputation. And so, to avoid the future danger of youth turning against the government bodies and influential people, Socrates was accused of "corrupting the youth" and was promptly found guilty. The clever and intelligent defense of his philosophical ideas and his teachings in Apology rather sped up his conviction than acquitting him. Crito and Phaedo describe certain philosophical debates Socrates had with his disciples and friends in his prison cell. In addition to communicating the philosophical views of Socrates, these two dialogues show the fortitude of Socrates. Even in the face of his death, he was true to what he believed. And in no instance, thought of changing colours to save his skin. These four dialogues paint a true picture of Socrates's character while at the same time describing his philosophical points of view.
The four dialogues are Plato's recounting of the last days of Socrates. Plato was said to be present at the trial of Socrates, but he was absent from the philosophical debates that took place in the prison cell of Socrates due to illness. It is also known that, soon after the death of Socrates, Plato left Athens and was absent for a considerable number of years, and so, a question may arise as to the accuracy of Plato's account. But, whatever the case may be, Plato's account of the last days of Socrates's life has done justice to the character, principles, and philosophy of his beloved teacher, Socrates.
How wise Socrates was when he uttered these words over 2000 years ago. Nothing much has changed since. The disinterested truth and justice seeker is always the enemy of the state. In every state, the persons who stimulate the mind of the populace are viewed as dangerous. If people start thinking for themselves, it is not easy for rulers to fool them. If the governing body is incompetent and is concerned only in their welfare and not of the people, and is governing the land through unjust laws, people will question, argue, and in extremity, will resort to violent actions against the government to secure their rights and establish justice. But no government wishes for this. They would very much like the populace to be kept in the dark, and anyone who wishes to throw light will be considered dangerous and will be duly persecuted. And this is what happened to Socrates. He may be a great philosopher of the day, but he was a danger to the Athenian rulers, who were an incompetent lot. And they promptly decided that to save their skin, Socrates must be out of the way. Hence the trial; and the subsequent death penalty silenced the great man forever.
The Trial and Death of Socrates, although focused on the indictment that brought Socrates before the Athenian courts, Socrates's defense, the unjust conviction, and his final days in prison, also discusses Socrates's philosophy in many subjects. This compilation consists of four dialogues: Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, and Phaedo. Euthyphro set the introduction to the events that followed by opening the dialogue as to what is pious, for one of the main accusations against Socrates was his disbelief in the accepted Athenian diety. The two dialogues, Euthyphro and Apology, make it clear that the prevalent ideas on piety advocated by the Sophists and that of Socrates tread on contrary grounds. It is then not surprising that Socrates is condemned as an atheist. However, Socrates knows that this is not the true cause of his condemnation. Through his philosophical teachings, he was stimulating the young minds towards achieving virtue and goodness against money and reputation which didn't sit well with the governing bodies and majority of society who were advocates of material wealth and reputation. And so, to avoid the future danger of youth turning against the government bodies and influential people, Socrates was accused of "corrupting the youth" and was promptly found guilty. The clever and intelligent defense of his philosophical ideas and his teachings in Apology rather sped up his conviction than acquitting him. Crito and Phaedo describe certain philosophical debates Socrates had with his disciples and friends in his prison cell. In addition to communicating the philosophical views of Socrates, these two dialogues show the fortitude of Socrates. Even in the face of his death, he was true to what he believed. And in no instance, thought of changing colours to save his skin. These four dialogues paint a true picture of Socrates's character while at the same time describing his philosophical points of view.
The four dialogues are Plato's recounting of the last days of Socrates. Plato was said to be present at the trial of Socrates, but he was absent from the philosophical debates that took place in the prison cell of Socrates due to illness. It is also known that, soon after the death of Socrates, Plato left Athens and was absent for a considerable number of years, and so, a question may arise as to the accuracy of Plato's account. But, whatever the case may be, Plato's account of the last days of Socrates's life has done justice to the character, principles, and philosophy of his beloved teacher, Socrates.
August 5, 2018
Somebody should tell Jon Snow to read this book. Poor guy, Ygritte wouldn't stop giving him hell. "You know nothing, Jon Snow" says she, all the time.
If only Jon would read Socrates, he would have the greatest of retorts, the greatest of Socrates' teachings as his come back.
"The only true wisdom is in knowing that you know nothing."
Take that Ygritte!
PS - Here is some mindbogglingly brilliant analysis of the famous painting on Socrates's death by Jacques Louis David
If only Jon would read Socrates, he would have the greatest of retorts, the greatest of Socrates' teachings as his come back.
"The only true wisdom is in knowing that you know nothing."
Take that Ygritte!
PS - Here is some mindbogglingly brilliant analysis of the famous painting on Socrates's death by Jacques Louis David
July 7, 2007
The world needs a superhero.
The name of that superhero is Socrates.
What do you mean you've never read this book - what the hell are you waiting for?
The name of that superhero is Socrates.
What do you mean you've never read this book - what the hell are you waiting for?
November 17, 2017
Le proc猫s de Socrate Eutyphron, Apologie de Socrate, Criton, Plato
鬲丕乇蹖禺 賳禺爻鬲蹖賳 禺賵丕賳卮: 爻賵賲 賲丕賴 丕讴鬲亘乇 爻丕賱 2012 賲蹖賱丕丿蹖
毓賳賵丕賳: 賲丨丕讴賲賴 蹖 爻賯乇丕胤: 丕賵鬲蹖賮乇賵賳貙 丿賮丕毓蹖賴 蹖 爻賯乇丕胤貙 讴乇蹖鬲賵賳貨鬲乇噩賲賴 丕夭 蹖賵賳丕賳蹖 亘賴 賮乇丕賳爻賵蹖: 賵蹖讴鬲賵乇 讴賵夭賳 丿乇 爻丕賱 1822 賲蹖賱丕丿蹖貨 亘丕夭賳诏乇蹖 賵 亘賴 乇賵夭 丌賵乇蹖: 爻蹖賱賵賳 诏賵蹖賵貨 鬲乇噩賲賴 丕夭 夭亘丕賳 賮乇丕賳爻賴 亘賴 賮丕乇爻蹖: 賱蹖賱蹖 诏賱爻鬲丕賳貨 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 賳卮乇 賲乇讴夭貙 1391貨 丿乇 121 氐貨 卮丕亘讴: 9789642131822貨 趩丕倬 丿賵賲 1392貨 賲賵囟賵毓: 賲丨丕讴賲賴 爻賯乇丕胤 - 賯乇賳 趩賴丕乇賲 倬蹖卮 丕夭 賲蹖賱丕丿蹖
乇賵丕蹖鬲蹖 丕夭 賲丨丕讴賲賴 芦爻賯乇丕胤禄 丕爻鬲 丿乇 爻賴 亘禺卮: 芦丕賵鬲蹖賮乇賵賳 蹖丕 丿乇 亘丕乇賴 蹖 鬲賯丿爻禄貙 芦丿賮丕毓蹖賴 蹖 爻賯乇丕胤禄貙 賵 芦讴乇蹖鬲賵賳 蹖丕 賵馗蹖賮賴 蹖 卮賴乇賵賳丿蹖禄. 亘丕賳賵蹖 賲鬲乇噩賲貙 賳爻禺賴 賮乇丕賳爻賴 讴鬲丕亘 芦賲丨丕讴賲賴 爻賯乇丕胤禄 賳賵卮鬲賴 芦丕賮賱丕胤賵賳禄 乇丕 鬲乇噩賲賴 讴乇丿賴 丕賳丿. 丕. 卮乇亘蹖丕賳蹖
鬲丕乇蹖禺 賳禺爻鬲蹖賳 禺賵丕賳卮: 爻賵賲 賲丕賴 丕讴鬲亘乇 爻丕賱 2012 賲蹖賱丕丿蹖
毓賳賵丕賳: 賲丨丕讴賲賴 蹖 爻賯乇丕胤: 丕賵鬲蹖賮乇賵賳貙 丿賮丕毓蹖賴 蹖 爻賯乇丕胤貙 讴乇蹖鬲賵賳貨鬲乇噩賲賴 丕夭 蹖賵賳丕賳蹖 亘賴 賮乇丕賳爻賵蹖: 賵蹖讴鬲賵乇 讴賵夭賳 丿乇 爻丕賱 1822 賲蹖賱丕丿蹖貨 亘丕夭賳诏乇蹖 賵 亘賴 乇賵夭 丌賵乇蹖: 爻蹖賱賵賳 诏賵蹖賵貨 鬲乇噩賲賴 丕夭 夭亘丕賳 賮乇丕賳爻賴 亘賴 賮丕乇爻蹖: 賱蹖賱蹖 诏賱爻鬲丕賳貨 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 賳卮乇 賲乇讴夭貙 1391貨 丿乇 121 氐貨 卮丕亘讴: 9789642131822貨 趩丕倬 丿賵賲 1392貨 賲賵囟賵毓: 賲丨丕讴賲賴 爻賯乇丕胤 - 賯乇賳 趩賴丕乇賲 倬蹖卮 丕夭 賲蹖賱丕丿蹖
乇賵丕蹖鬲蹖 丕夭 賲丨丕讴賲賴 芦爻賯乇丕胤禄 丕爻鬲 丿乇 爻賴 亘禺卮: 芦丕賵鬲蹖賮乇賵賳 蹖丕 丿乇 亘丕乇賴 蹖 鬲賯丿爻禄貙 芦丿賮丕毓蹖賴 蹖 爻賯乇丕胤禄貙 賵 芦讴乇蹖鬲賵賳 蹖丕 賵馗蹖賮賴 蹖 卮賴乇賵賳丿蹖禄. 亘丕賳賵蹖 賲鬲乇噩賲貙 賳爻禺賴 賮乇丕賳爻賴 讴鬲丕亘 芦賲丨丕讴賲賴 爻賯乇丕胤禄 賳賵卮鬲賴 芦丕賮賱丕胤賵賳禄 乇丕 鬲乇噩賲賴 讴乇丿賴 丕賳丿. 丕. 卮乇亘蹖丕賳蹖
May 30, 2021
I do not know, men of Athens, how my accusers affected you; as for me, I was almost carried away in spite of myself, so persuasively did they speak. And yet, hardly anything of what they said is true.
Socrates
It's strange to reread a text that I first read when I was young, idealistic, optimistic, and believed that the expunging of those who questioned conventional thinking was the exception, not the rule.
Plato's Trial and Death of Socrates is a slim volume (58 pages) and consists of four dialogues, the most famous of which is the Apologia, Socrates's defense against charges of corrupting the youth, failing to acknowledge the Gods recognized by Athens and introducing new divinities.
The overall text examines numerous philosophical concerns that include the nature of knowledge, virtue, piety, and the immortality of the soul. I read this work in conjunction with a course on Greek Philosophy. The lecturer, Dr. Robert Bartlett from Boston College, argues that Socrates's conviction and sentence of death demonstrate the distrust and dislike of philosophers at the time. He believes that Plato succeeded in transforming the reputation of philosophers with this text from corrupter to martyr.
It was interesting to reflect not only on the issues raised but the shifting meaning that comes with age and the context in which I read the text. I have recently become interested in the decline of democracy and see frightening parallels in how political contingencies can narrow freedom of thought.
Socrates
It's strange to reread a text that I first read when I was young, idealistic, optimistic, and believed that the expunging of those who questioned conventional thinking was the exception, not the rule.
Plato's Trial and Death of Socrates is a slim volume (58 pages) and consists of four dialogues, the most famous of which is the Apologia, Socrates's defense against charges of corrupting the youth, failing to acknowledge the Gods recognized by Athens and introducing new divinities.
The overall text examines numerous philosophical concerns that include the nature of knowledge, virtue, piety, and the immortality of the soul. I read this work in conjunction with a course on Greek Philosophy. The lecturer, Dr. Robert Bartlett from Boston College, argues that Socrates's conviction and sentence of death demonstrate the distrust and dislike of philosophers at the time. He believes that Plato succeeded in transforming the reputation of philosophers with this text from corrupter to martyr.
It was interesting to reflect not only on the issues raised but the shifting meaning that comes with age and the context in which I read the text. I have recently become interested in the decline of democracy and see frightening parallels in how political contingencies can narrow freedom of thought.
April 22, 2013
I was a bit wary going in but I was pleasantly surprised that this book wasn't as difficult to understand as I'd expected it to be.
The edition I read covered three dialogues about Socrates (Apologia, Crito and Phaedo), who was tried for supposedly corrupting the youth of Athens as well as for encouraging worship of gods not recognized by the State. I've always heard that Socrates was a powerful orator and the way he defended himself in front of the court proves that. Even when he was sentenced to death, Socrates was curiously upbeat and as philosophical as ever, discussing the state of the soul and so on.
What I got from the book was that Socrates was curious and valued virtue, humility and honesty. I can see how he pushed a few buttons, telling people how stupid and ignorant they actually were!
I still can't wrap my head around how long ago this was written. My favourite section of the book was definitely Apologia. Amazing courtroom drama. Had it not been for the drawn-out investigation of the soul in Phaedo, I would have given this 5 stars.
The edition I read covered three dialogues about Socrates (Apologia, Crito and Phaedo), who was tried for supposedly corrupting the youth of Athens as well as for encouraging worship of gods not recognized by the State. I've always heard that Socrates was a powerful orator and the way he defended himself in front of the court proves that. Even when he was sentenced to death, Socrates was curiously upbeat and as philosophical as ever, discussing the state of the soul and so on.
What I got from the book was that Socrates was curious and valued virtue, humility and honesty. I can see how he pushed a few buttons, telling people how stupid and ignorant they actually were!
I still can't wrap my head around how long ago this was written. My favourite section of the book was definitely Apologia. Amazing courtroom drama. Had it not been for the drawn-out investigation of the soul in Phaedo, I would have given this 5 stars.
July 19, 2014
I wish I had read these 4 dialogues before they made us work through The Republic back in school. Plato can seem so distant and archiac so much of the time, but here there is an actual sense of human urgency: Socrates is about to die. A lot of times the dialogues feel completely neutered from any real world concern, you just see these people walking around, having their abstract little discussions as Socrates schools them all. But here you see those discussions finally grounded by a frank acknowledgement and confrontation with mortality. This is the last chance he will ever have to say anything, and everyone knows it. Plenty of subsequent works of philosophy offer more compelling, accesible arguements, but few can match the pathos and immediacy of a condemned man having a few last words with his friends before he carries out the death sentance against himself. I don't know if this is the best place to start reading Plato, but it's certianly one of the most humane.
September 2, 2021
91st book of 2021.
By Thrasyllus' ordering of Plato's work*, this collection compiles the first tetralogy: Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo. Collected together and titled, fittingly, The Last Days of Socrates, these dialogues do exactly that. In Euthyphro we see Socrates talking outside the court, in Apology we hear Socrates defence inside the court, in Crito we see him in his cell and in Phaedo we see his last few hours on planet earth. Together: the philosopher's last days.
I first read Symposium which Thrasyllus places in the 3rd tetralogy but I'd say, having now read the first, that it is an excellent starting point. Its subject of love is far more relatable than some of the themes in these dialogues like justice, Intelligence, the soul, etc., and creates a lovely portrait of Socrates as a character, more so than in some of these dialogues here. I read these in fairly quick succession and at times Socrates can become slightly annoying; particularly by the time I was reading Phaedo, his typical Socratic approach to debating became a little repetitive. On top of that, I think the Phaedo is one of the weakest of the tetralogy, despite being considered one of Plato's masterpieces. His explanations of the soul are long-winded and outdated now and don't read with any lasting freshness, as the debates on love in Symposium surprisingly do. To ponder, they are intriguing, but anymore than that and they fall down. I liked the Theory of Recollection but the Theory of Opposites was mostly moot for me. However, if I were to say I do believe in the soul then I would probably suggest that it must surely be immortal, Socrates' philosophies aside.
鈥摈濒补迟辞
Euthyphro is interesting but ultimately unsatisfying as the titular character walks off "mid-debate", flustered. For me, the Apology is the highlight. We find within the familiar arguments about being intelligent because one knows they are not intelligent. Socrates says it at some point like this,
This is when he recounts his wandering around Athens looking for intelligent people to test his own intelligence against: Socrates essentially ends up believing he must be the most intelligent (and besides, an oracle said so too). The mini conclusion he comes to?
I found this fitting in a world where so many people appear to be comparing themselves to one another and constantly trying to be, perhaps, something they are not. So I underlined that last bit of the sentence twice: ''it was best for me to be as I was.''
Crito returns to the theme of justice making it similar to Euthyphro. Socrates shows his dedication to goodness/righteousness by declining the prospect of his escape for it would be "wrong". Whatever one thinks about him, he sticks to his guns, I suppose. In Phaedo I find him irritating and his argument overwrought as I said but the final pages (where he takes the poison) quite moving. All in all, very satisifying to read and thought-provoking. Next up will probably be Republic for me, or else a few other dialogues before. Meno, maybe, as it has ties with Phaedo.
鈥掷辞肠谤补迟别蝉
____________________________________
*1st Tetralogy: Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo
2nd Tetralogy: Cratylus, Theatetus, Sophist, Statesman
3rd Tetralogy: Parmenides, Philebus, Symposium, Phaedrus
4th Tetralogy: Alcibiades I, Alcibiades II, Hipparchus, Lovers
5th Tetralogy: Theages, Charmides, Laches, Lysis
6th Tetralogy: Euthydemus, Protagoras, Gorgias, Meno
7th Tetralogy: Hippias Major, Hippias Minor, Ion, Menexenus
8th Tetralogy: Clitophon, Republic, Timaeus, Critias
9th Tetralogy: Minos, Laws, Epinomis, Letters
By Thrasyllus' ordering of Plato's work*, this collection compiles the first tetralogy: Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo. Collected together and titled, fittingly, The Last Days of Socrates, these dialogues do exactly that. In Euthyphro we see Socrates talking outside the court, in Apology we hear Socrates defence inside the court, in Crito we see him in his cell and in Phaedo we see his last few hours on planet earth. Together: the philosopher's last days.
I first read Symposium which Thrasyllus places in the 3rd tetralogy but I'd say, having now read the first, that it is an excellent starting point. Its subject of love is far more relatable than some of the themes in these dialogues like justice, Intelligence, the soul, etc., and creates a lovely portrait of Socrates as a character, more so than in some of these dialogues here. I read these in fairly quick succession and at times Socrates can become slightly annoying; particularly by the time I was reading Phaedo, his typical Socratic approach to debating became a little repetitive. On top of that, I think the Phaedo is one of the weakest of the tetralogy, despite being considered one of Plato's masterpieces. His explanations of the soul are long-winded and outdated now and don't read with any lasting freshness, as the debates on love in Symposium surprisingly do. To ponder, they are intriguing, but anymore than that and they fall down. I liked the Theory of Recollection but the Theory of Opposites was mostly moot for me. However, if I were to say I do believe in the soul then I would probably suggest that it must surely be immortal, Socrates' philosophies aside.
鈥摈濒补迟辞
Euthyphro is interesting but ultimately unsatisfying as the titular character walks off "mid-debate", flustered. For me, the Apology is the highlight. We find within the familiar arguments about being intelligent because one knows they are not intelligent. Socrates says it at some point like this,
鈥楬owever, I reflected as I walked away: 鈥榃ell, I am certainly wiser than this man. It is only too likely that neither of us has any knowledge to boast of; but he thinks that he knows something which he does not know, whereas I am quite conscious of my ignorance. At any rate it seems that I am wiser than he is to this small extent, that I do not think that I know what I do not know.鈥�'
This is when he recounts his wandering around Athens looking for intelligent people to test his own intelligence against: Socrates essentially ends up believing he must be the most intelligent (and besides, an oracle said so too). The mini conclusion he comes to?
鈥楽o I made myself spokesman for the oracle, and asked myself whether I would rather be as I was鈥攏either wise with their wisdom nor ignorant with their ignorance鈥攐r possess both qualities as they did. I replied through myself to the oracle that it was best for me to be as I was.鈥�
I found this fitting in a world where so many people appear to be comparing themselves to one another and constantly trying to be, perhaps, something they are not. So I underlined that last bit of the sentence twice: ''it was best for me to be as I was.''
Crito returns to the theme of justice making it similar to Euthyphro. Socrates shows his dedication to goodness/righteousness by declining the prospect of his escape for it would be "wrong". Whatever one thinks about him, he sticks to his guns, I suppose. In Phaedo I find him irritating and his argument overwrought as I said but the final pages (where he takes the poison) quite moving. All in all, very satisifying to read and thought-provoking. Next up will probably be Republic for me, or else a few other dialogues before. Meno, maybe, as it has ties with Phaedo.
鈥掷辞肠谤补迟别蝉
____________________________________
*1st Tetralogy: Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo
2nd Tetralogy: Cratylus, Theatetus, Sophist, Statesman
3rd Tetralogy: Parmenides, Philebus, Symposium, Phaedrus
4th Tetralogy: Alcibiades I, Alcibiades II, Hipparchus, Lovers
5th Tetralogy: Theages, Charmides, Laches, Lysis
6th Tetralogy: Euthydemus, Protagoras, Gorgias, Meno
7th Tetralogy: Hippias Major, Hippias Minor, Ion, Menexenus
8th Tetralogy: Clitophon, Republic, Timaeus, Critias
9th Tetralogy: Minos, Laws, Epinomis, Letters
August 30, 2024
兀賮賱丕胤賵賳 亘賷丿丨乇噩 丕賱鬲賲丕爻賷
May 10, 2020
Socrates was a favorite philosopher of my youth but also a chilling reminder on the power of groups, the masses who will always seek to destroy who they don't understand or who challenges them.
November 23, 2018
賱賲 丕賯乇兀 賮賶 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 賯亘賱 匕賱賰 , 賵賱賰賳 毓賳丿賲丕 賯乇兀鬲 賰鬲丕亘 氐賳丕毓丞 丕賱賵丕賯毓 賵乇兀賷鬲賴 賷毓胤賶 兀賲孬賱丞 賱兀賮賰丕乇 爻賯乇丕胤 賵丕賮賱丕胤賵賳, 賯賱鬲 賷噩亘 丕賳 丕賯乇兀 賱賴賲 丨鬲賷 丕毓賱賲 賰賷賮 賰丕賳 賷賮賰乇 賴丐賱丕亍 丕賱賮賱丕爻賮丞 賲賳匕 丕賱丕賮 丕賱丕毓賵丕賲 亘兀賮賰丕乇 賱丕 鬲兀鬲賶 賮賶 毓賯賵賱 賲賳 賷毓賷卮賵賳 賮賶 丕賱兀賱賮賷丞 丕賱孬丕賱孬丞 .
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 毓亘丕乇丞 毓賳 兀乇亘毓 賲丨丕賵乇丕鬲 賰鬲亘賴丕 丕賮賱丕胤賵賳 毓賱賶 賱爻丕賳 爻賯乇丕胤 , 賵賷賯賵賱 丿. 夭賰賷 賳噩賷亘 賮賶 丕賱賲賯丿賲丞 丕賳 亘丿丕賷丞 丕賱丨賵丕乇丕鬲 丕賱鬲賶 賰鬲亘賴丕 兀賮賱丕胤賵賳 鬲賱賲賷匕 爻賯乇丕胤 賰丕賳鬲 亘賮賰乇 賮賱爻賱賮丞 爻賯乇丕胤 賵賱賰賳 亘毓丿 匕賱賰 賰鬲亘 兀賮賱丕胤賵賳 亘賮賰乇賴 賵賮賱爻賮鬲賴 丕賱禺丕氐丞 .
丕爻賱賵亘 丕賱賲丨丕賵乇丞 賮賶 毓乇囟 賮賰乇鬲賴 丕賱賮賱爻賮賷丞 丕爻賴賱 賵兀賮囟賱 賲賳 賰鬲丕亘賴 丕賱賮賰乇丞, 賮丕賱賲賳丕馗乇丞 丕賵 丕賱賲丨丕賵乇丞 鬲毓乇囟 賵噩賴鬲丕賳 丕賱賳馗乇 賮毓賳丿賲丕 鬲乇賶 賵噩賴丞 賳馗乇 賲毓丕乇囟丞 賱賮賰乇 爻賯乇丕胤 賵賷賯賵賲 爻賯乇丕胤 丕賵 丕賱賮賷賱爻賵賮 亘鬲賮賳賷丿賴丕 亘丕賱毓賯賱 賵丕賱丕丿賱丞 , 鬲賯鬲賳毓 亘賴丕 兀賰孬乇 .
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 毓亘丕乇丞 毓賳 兀乇亘毓 丨賵丕乇丕鬲 :
丨賵丕乇 兀胤賷賮乇賵賳 : 毓賳 賲賮賴賵賲 賰賱賲丞 丕賱鬲賯賵賷
丨賵丕乇 丕賱丿賮丕毓 : 賵賴賵 丿賮丕毓 爻賯乇丕胤 毓賳 賳賮爻賴 賮賶 丕賱賲丨賰賲丞 賯亘賱 丕賱丨賰賲 亘廿毓丿丕賲賴
丨賵丕乇 丕賯乇賷胤賵賳 : 賵賴賵 鬲賱賲賷匕 爻賯乇丕胤 噩丕亍 丕賱賷賴 賱賷賯賳毓賴 亘丕賱賴乇亘 賯亘賱 廿毓丿丕賲賴
丨賵丕乇 賮賷丿賵賳 : 毓賳 丕賱乇賵丨 賵禺賱賵丿 丕賱乇賵丨 亘毓丿 賲賵鬲 丕賱噩爻丿 賵毓賵丿丞 鬲賱賰 丕賱乇賵丨 賮賶 兀噩爻丕丿 丕卮禺丕氐 兀禺乇賷
鬲乇噩賲丞 賵鬲毓賱賷賯丕鬲 丿賰鬲賵乇 夭賰賷 賳噩賷亘 賲丨賲賵丿 乇丕卅毓丞 .
September 3, 2015
丿乇亘丕乇賴鈥屰� 爻賯乇丕胤 賵 爻賵亘跇讴鬲蹖賵蹖鬲賴鈥屰� 夭蹖爻鬲賳卮 讴賴 亘賴鬲乇賴 丕賴賱 賮賱爻賮賴 賳馗乇 亘丿賳. 賲賳 丕賲丕 賲蹖鈥屫堌з� 丕夭 賱匕鬲 丕毓鬲賲丕丿 亘诏賲. 丕毓鬲賲丕丿 亘賴 亘丕賳賵 賱蹖賱蹖 诏賱爻鬲丕賳 賵 賳卮乇 賲丨鬲乇賲 賲乇讴夭貙 讴賴 賵賯鬲蹖 讴賳丕乇 賴賲 賯乇丕乇 賲蹖鈥屭屫辟� 丌丿賲 亘丕 禺丕胤乇 丌爻賵丿賴貙 丌爻賵丿賴 丕夭 賲爻卅賵賱蹖鬲鈥屬矩佰屫臂� 賵 丨賯蹖賯鬲鈥屬矩必池屸€屫促堎嗀� 丕孬乇 乇賵 鬲賴蹖賴 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁� 賵 亘賱丕賮丕氐賱賴 卮乇賵毓 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁� 亘賴 禺賵賳丿賳. 趩蹖夭 讴賲鈥屫ж必藏篡� 賳蹖爻鬲. 賵丕賯毓丕 亘丕蹖丿 賯丿乇 丕蹖賳鈥屫堌� 丕鬲賮丕賯鈥屬囏� 賵 丕蹖賳 賯亘蹖賱 丕賮乇丕丿 乇賵 丿賵賳爻鬲.
October 3, 2024
The year was 399 B.C.E鈥� Socrates a man deemed to be filled with 鈥渨isdom and virtue鈥� was convicted and put to trial for corrupting the minds of the youth in surrounding Athens. Plato documents the conversations Socrates has before going to trial, his defence in trial and the days before he is put to death. Years later, the year is 2024 and a 27 year old girl named Jazmyn tries to put a little review together whilst feeling completely impudent in even trying to attempt to do such a task鈥�
Socrates has never seemingly written anything himself, all we have is secondhand information from his followers and admirers, it鈥檚 hard to differentiate from Plato鈥檚 own philosophy and ideals compared to the truer events and depictions of Socrates last days.
I found this incredibly interesting, especially Apology, where I found Socrates to be put forth as quite a funny and to the point man, he is true to his beliefs and he stands strong despite the criticism. This edition was filled with great introductions and notes at the end that really enhanced my understanding of the text. I still can鈥檛 help but feel like I have only skimmed the surface of the meaning and deeper understanding of the full novel, I hope to revisit this in the future after I read a few more books by Plato, Aristotle etc as I think each time I come back I will find something else and gain a deeper understanding.
Socrates has never seemingly written anything himself, all we have is secondhand information from his followers and admirers, it鈥檚 hard to differentiate from Plato鈥檚 own philosophy and ideals compared to the truer events and depictions of Socrates last days.
I found this incredibly interesting, especially Apology, where I found Socrates to be put forth as quite a funny and to the point man, he is true to his beliefs and he stands strong despite the criticism. This edition was filled with great introductions and notes at the end that really enhanced my understanding of the text. I still can鈥檛 help but feel like I have only skimmed the surface of the meaning and deeper understanding of the full novel, I hope to revisit this in the future after I read a few more books by Plato, Aristotle etc as I think each time I come back I will find something else and gain a deeper understanding.
June 17, 2023
Only read the Apology and Crito. The Apology was magnificent. May come back to the other two sometime but unfortunately don鈥檛 have the time at the moment.
January 28, 2020
Some times I disagree with the philosophical standing of Plato, other times, I love his works. Particularly this one (or the four combined), depicting the last days of Socrates, mostly arguing for the soul as an immortal constant, referring to form as unchanging and eternal, the common reference to non-empirical knowledge, the difference between the incorporeal and corporeal, and the nature of the soul . I am not going into any detail about these things, because I do not have the background required for the understanding of his views, except for the classes I have taken and the works of his I have read, but that is not much. But I hope that small break down will help many people when answering a question at school, which I might have done before as well, when I have forgone my reading.
August 23, 2010
Socrates is a little bit like Superman. As a young man, both are very appealing for their heroism and pristine behavior. As one ages, however, they begin to dissatisfy - there is no way these people could be real.
This is obviously due to Plato's portrayal of the man, an homage so complete that Socrates becomes pure ideal and ceases to be human. He stands for intellectual honesty and curiosity, morality and justice, without any compromise.
This book is about as good an example of that as possible, and as far as comic book heroes go, it can be enjoyable.
However, the reasoning in most of the book is flawed even by the standards of that time. Scholars argue that Plato does this knowingly, so that the reader will discover these flaws and grow as a consequence. That may very well be, but its boring to follow an argument for 10 pages when you know the underlying assumptions are wrong.
Its a good skim - and it actually begs for a graphic novel version.
This is obviously due to Plato's portrayal of the man, an homage so complete that Socrates becomes pure ideal and ceases to be human. He stands for intellectual honesty and curiosity, morality and justice, without any compromise.
This book is about as good an example of that as possible, and as far as comic book heroes go, it can be enjoyable.
However, the reasoning in most of the book is flawed even by the standards of that time. Scholars argue that Plato does this knowingly, so that the reader will discover these flaws and grow as a consequence. That may very well be, but its boring to follow an argument for 10 pages when you know the underlying assumptions are wrong.
Its a good skim - and it actually begs for a graphic novel version.
September 26, 2022
兀賳丕 丌爻賮 賵丕賱賱賴 兀賳丕 毓賷賱 氐睾賷乇
January 18, 2018
Ngo脿i b岷 d峄媍h c峄 L锚 Anh Minh cho b峄� Trung-qu峄慶 tri岷縯 h峄峜 s峄� c峄 Ph霉ng H峄痷 Lan, th矛 b岷 d峄媍h n脿y c峄 Nguy峄卬 V膬n Khoa c贸 膽峄� kh岷 c峄﹗ k末 c脿ng v脿 ch峄塶 chu nh岷 trong t矛nh h矛nh d峄媍h s谩ch h峄峜 thu岷璽 峄� Vi峄噒-nam t铆nh 膽岷縩 th峄漣 膽i峄僲 n脿y. Tuy nhi锚n, t瓢 li峄噓 m脿 么ng Nguy峄卬 V膬n Khoa s峄� d峄g l岷 thu峄檆 h脿ng c农 k末 v脿 thi岷縰 s峄� 膽铆ch 膽谩ng (膽啤n c峄� vi峄嘽 么ng d霉ng b岷 Anh ng峄� c峄 Benjamin Jowett, m峄檛 b岷 Anh ng峄� c峄眂 k矛 thi岷縰 x谩c t铆n), v脿 c农ng th岷璽 膽谩ng ti岷縞 khi 么ng c农ng kh么ng d霉ng 膽岷縩 nh峄痭g b脿i kh岷 c峄﹗ trong ph瓢啤ng di峄噉 tri岷縯 l岷玭 ng峄� v膬n (philology) v峄� Plat艒n n贸i chung v脿 nh峄痭g 膽峄慽 tho岷 trong s谩ch n脿y n贸i ri锚ng.
H啤n n峄璦 th岷� k峄� tr么i qua k峄� t峄� t谩c ph岷﹎ 膽岷 ti锚n c峄 tri岷縯 Hi-l岷 膽瓢峄 d峄媍h sang ti岷縩g Vi峄噒, Vi峄噒-nam v岷玭 c貌n ch瓢a 膽i 膽瓢峄 m峄檛 n峄璦 giai 膽o岷 膽瓢峄 g峄峣 l脿 "th峄漣 k矛 khai minh" trong c么ng t谩c d峄媍h thu岷璽 tri岷縯 Hi-l岷 c峄� 膽i峄僴 (period of enlightenment; giai 膽o岷 膽岷 ti锚n trong ba giai 膽o岷, x茅t theo c谩ch chia c峄 Fujii Yoshio khi b脿n v峄� c么ng t谩c d峄媍h thu岷璽 tri岷縯 Hi-l岷 峄� Nh岷璽 t峄� thu峄� Minh-tr峄� cho 膽岷縩 th岷璸 ni锚n 1950).
H啤n n峄璦 th岷� k峄� tr么i qua k峄� t峄� t谩c ph岷﹎ 膽岷 ti锚n c峄 tri岷縯 Hi-l岷 膽瓢峄 d峄媍h sang ti岷縩g Vi峄噒, Vi峄噒-nam v岷玭 c貌n ch瓢a 膽i 膽瓢峄 m峄檛 n峄璦 giai 膽o岷 膽瓢峄 g峄峣 l脿 "th峄漣 k矛 khai minh" trong c么ng t谩c d峄媍h thu岷璽 tri岷縯 Hi-l岷 c峄� 膽i峄僴 (period of enlightenment; giai 膽o岷 膽岷 ti锚n trong ba giai 膽o岷, x茅t theo c谩ch chia c峄 Fujii Yoshio khi b脿n v峄� c么ng t谩c d峄媍h thu岷璽 tri岷縯 Hi-l岷 峄� Nh岷璽 t峄� thu峄� Minh-tr峄� cho 膽岷縩 th岷璸 ni锚n 1950).
June 11, 2009
There are some books that are beyond "liking" or "not liking." They exist on a completely different plain than the rest of literature. This is one of those books. You don't read "The Trial and Death of Socrates" to be entertained; whether you like it or not is completely immaterial. By reading it, you gain an appreciation for one of the greatest thinkers of all time, and a valuable window into the soul of humankind.
How can one possibly quanitfy and encapsulate that into three, four, or five stars?
How can one possibly quanitfy and encapsulate that into three, four, or five stars?
February 17, 2016
Rereading, because I miss philosophy. Disclaimer, this review is 0% intellectual because after four years of studying philosophy in undergrad, I'm unable to be serious when talking about Plato, or Socrates, or Aristotle (maybe Aristotle? I might still have some cerebral life left in me to discuss the Ethics... but I digress. Another review, another day).
Anyway, Socrates. I've always had this love/hate relationship with him. He's like that asshole who comes to every fucking party and for some reason, everyone there seems to think it's his party and his house and you all defer to him, and he just kind of takes this respect without saying anything for a while, but then when he's drunk he asks "So this is a nice place, who lives here?" And this happens at every. Single. Fucking. Party. And you start to realize he's just a dick who humblebrags his way through life and every time he makes a self-effacing comment, you know that what he really means is "Watch this: I'm so great I'm even HUMBLE, bitches." And then when he's sentenced to death, you cheer.
For example. "Everyone, even the actual god Apollo, says I'm the smartest person in the world. .. But really guys I'm not." Yeah that sounds 100% sincere, man.
Still, while totally the biggest jackass at the party, he's also the clever fast-talking talldarkandhandsome guy with sexy glasses and a Moleskine who winks at every girl and makes her feel like she's the only one he's acknowledging. So basically, he's a babe.
In sum, I feel like he and I would have great hate sex. That is all.
Anyway, Socrates. I've always had this love/hate relationship with him. He's like that asshole who comes to every fucking party and for some reason, everyone there seems to think it's his party and his house and you all defer to him, and he just kind of takes this respect without saying anything for a while, but then when he's drunk he asks "So this is a nice place, who lives here?" And this happens at every. Single. Fucking. Party. And you start to realize he's just a dick who humblebrags his way through life and every time he makes a self-effacing comment, you know that what he really means is "Watch this: I'm so great I'm even HUMBLE, bitches." And then when he's sentenced to death, you cheer.
For example. "Everyone, even the actual god Apollo, says I'm the smartest person in the world. .. But really guys I'm not." Yeah that sounds 100% sincere, man.
Still, while totally the biggest jackass at the party, he's also the clever fast-talking talldarkandhandsome guy with sexy glasses and a Moleskine who winks at every girl and makes her feel like she's the only one he's acknowledging. So basically, he's a babe.
In sum, I feel like he and I would have great hate sex. That is all.
January 10, 2016
Since I have individually reviewed each dialogue concerning their content I will be personal here. I obviously enjoyed reading these dialogues. I was not only enlightened by them, but moved as well in certain parts, more by Socrates' friends than the man himself. This really should be the jumping off point for anyone interested in philosophy because it sets the tone and you can compare every strand of philosophy after it against it. Plato did not create [western] philosophy, obviously, but he sure did make it into something amazing and it would be worth anyones time to check him out.
I will always admire the Socratic method even though I am in no way able to pull it off (trust me I've tried), but it is poetry to read. We could all benefit from a revival of Plato in society, but since I won't hold my breath those who have read him can be thankful for the opportunity.
(I read these dialogues as apart of the anthology)
I will always admire the Socratic method even though I am in no way able to pull it off (trust me I've tried), but it is poetry to read. We could all benefit from a revival of Plato in society, but since I won't hold my breath those who have read him can be thankful for the opportunity.
(I read these dialogues as apart of the anthology)
December 9, 2016
Well this blew my mind
February 8, 2019
The Last Days of Socrates (2003) is a collection of four of Plato鈥檚 dialogues, all centred around the last days that his tutor Socrates was alive. The four dialogues follow Socrates鈥� adventures as he goes to court to face his accusers in his trial, his conviction and his final moments before taking the poison and dying.
The first dialogue, Euthyphro, takes place at the Athenian court, when Socrates has to wait for his trial to begin. There, while waiting, he meets a man, Euthyphro, who comes to accuse his father for murdering one of his slaves. The slave had killed someone from Euthyphro鈥檚 father鈥檚 household, so Euthyphro鈥檚 father tied up the slave, put him in a ditch and went to the Athenian court to ask what he should do. After he came back, the slave had died from hunger and thirst, so Euthyphro decides to take his own father to court and let the judges decide if they convict the man for murder or not.
Socrates naturally begs the question: why do you think it is good to take your own father to court? After which Euthyphro ends up in a Socratic dialogue which centres around the question of what is pious? Pious, because Euthyphro tells Socrates that it is good to accuse his own father because the gods approve of this. In summary: Socrates asks him whether (1) something is pious because the gods approve it, or (2) the gods approve it because it is pious? (1) leads to a definition of piety as slaving away at the whims of the gods, which cannot be really pious; (2) leads to a definition of piety as something in itself, something to which the gods have to submit, just like human beings need to. (1) is obeying a dictator while (2) makes the gods superfluous.
So Euthyphro counters that Piety is a subdivision of Justice. Justice can be split up into just according to humans (treating other human beings well) and just according to gods (offering to the gods what鈥檚 due to them). Euthyphro answers that human piety offers gratitude to the gods, but, according to Socrates, this brings one back to the original question: why do the gods then approve of this? Now, Euthyphro has enough, leaves Socrates and the dialogue ends.
In the Apology, Socrates offers his defence speech, after his accusers have brought the charges against him. Socrates is accused of being an atheist (i.e. not believing in the gods that the State prescribes) and a corrupter of morality (i.e. teaching the young to think for themselves and not believe arguments based on authority/expertise).
Socrates defends himself in a rather apathic way, not caring much about what will happen to him. The only thing he cares for is to stick to his principles. He says he is no atheist since he believes in God (his own God, not the Athenian gods); he is not a teacher since he doesn鈥檛 ask money for his dialogues and he doesn鈥檛 teach any subject; and he doesn鈥檛 know anything, that鈥檚 the only thing he knows, so he could never corrupt his conversational partners anyway.
Many years ago, the Oracle at Delphi told a friend of Socrates that Socrates is the wisest of men. To find out why, he went to the people who are supposed to be knowledgeable experts in their fields: politicians, poets and skilled craftsmen. But by questioning these people, Socrates found out that all of them pretended to know things while in actuality they didn鈥檛 know anything. And not only this, this didn鈥檛 even know that they didn鈥檛 know anything.
So, Socrates pleads 鈥榥ot guilty鈥�, since he has done no harm to anyone 鈥� rather the reverse: he has enlightened people and has protected the Athenian people from making certain mistakes. He warns the jury (which were judges as well), that they have made a big mistake by ordering Socrates鈥� to die and that Athens will pay for it. Without knowledge, Athens will not be virtuous.
We see here the upright dogmatists not bending his back in front of resentful, lowly opponents. He is even haughty enough to laugh away the offer to live, by either excusing himself, escaping from prison or paying a fee 鈥� in fact, he supposes his punishment to be that the State will take care of him in a fashionable manner, providing food and shelter, out of gratitude for his work.
When in his cell, awaiting his day of reckoning, Socrates is visited by friends. One of them, Crito, is the main personage in the third dialogue, Crito. Crito comes to visit Socrates to beg him to escape his prison cell and live somewhere else and see his three children grow up. Socrates replies that escaping prison would mean breaking the Athenian law and hence injuring the State and the Laws. Injuring someone is injustice, and being virtuous forbids injustice. Socrates has two options: convince the State of its mistake (which he failed to do) or to undergo punishment.
In this dialogue, Plato lets Socrates explain how the Laws are almost a personage on their own 鈥� Socrates claims the laws birthed him, reared him and when he turned 17 (the age at which a child became an adult), he voluntarily entered into a contract with the State. He could have left, then and in the meantime, but he didn鈥檛. This signals the willing submission to the State and its Laws. Escaping prison now would mean breaking the law; being just requires Socrates to undergo his punishment (i.e. die).
Again, we see here the dogmatist who feels upright and superior to all the hypocrites around him 鈥� a typical academic attitude, which can be seen in many academics in our own time as well. The feeling of superior knowledge and the position that entitles someone to exclaim truths 鈥� never mind all the fallacies involved here.
Anyway, the final dialogue, the Phaedo, explains how Socrates lived in his final moments. A group of friends visit him, and are grieved and worried about their friend鈥檚 nearing death. Socrates tries to argue them out of their emotions by claiming that they should be happy for him. Why? Because, being a philosopher, he will in a very short time become an immortal soul again, soaring to heavenly heights, since he has led a good life. The gods chain souls in fragile, corruptible and corrupting bodies. They will reward a man for living a life of contemplation, resisting all the bodily desires such as food, drinks and sex.
Most of the people will succumb to the bodily seduction and lead a life of debauchery and ignorance. The gods will punish these souls by reincarnating them as stupid, lowly animals, such as donkeys and flies. People who do better will be reincarnated as social animals, bees and ants, for example. The most purest of souls, those who devote their entire life to loving wisdom (i.e. literally, the philosophers), will be best off 鈥� they will be rewarded in the afterlife and meet the gods and other great men.
This is the picture of the afterlife that Socrates paints. But why should his friends believe him? Because of his arguments. Socrates thinks that he can logically prove the existence of an immortal (literally un-dying) and imperishable soul. Composites can break down in their constituents, which can form new composites 鈥� hence, these substances are changing, perceptible and mortal. Elements, though, cannot 鈥� by definition 鈥� be broken down in more elementary constituents 鈥� hence, these substances are unchanging, imperceptible and immortal. These elements can only be abstracted from perceptible things and hence perceptible things can only resemble these abstract things in more or less degrees. Plato identifies these imperceptible things as Ideas, or Forms, and the sensible things as material objects, which partake in these Ideas.
The soul is deemed to be such an immortal and imperceptible element, and hence cannot be destroyed (literally is un-dying). So, when we observe corpses decompose, we see composites break down in their elements. But the soul, as a life-giving element, cannot be destroyed so it has to go somewhere after the body dies. The soul become a pure reality, a pure Idea, again 鈥� just like it was before it was tied town to a fragile body by the gods. Also, we can know that our soul existed before our births be turning the Plato鈥檚 theory of knowledge as recollection. We know things that cannot come from sense-perception, so this knowledge but somehow already exist in our souls before we were born as organisms. This proves that the soul exists before we are born as organisms and that the soul knew much but forgot things (possibly due to bodily distractions).
The Apology is basically one long argument to prove the existence of the soul as an immortal, imperceptible, infinite thing. It is Plato鈥檚 finest expos茅 of his theory of Ideas (or Forms) and it offers us the mechanism by which these Ideas operate to create the world around us and all the change in it. Building on Pre-Socratic notions, Plato explains that the universe was ordered out of mixed substances by Intelligence, and that Intelligence partakes in certain objects in the universe, giving these objects life, motivation and reason. The human soul is such an intelligent thing, partaking in Intelligence in more or lesser degrees.
I can see how this mysticism might appeal to people, deriving true reality from the endless bombardment of sense-experience. Our senses are limited and prone to errors, so it鈥檚 very comfortable to look for stability behind all the apparent change. But it is a logical fallacy, none the less 鈥� you cannot treat existence as a predicate. Existence is not a quality that objects can possess or lack. You cannot claim that because I can abstract a perfect circle from observations from imperfect, worldly circles (e.g. in the sand), this abstraction thus exists. Thinking something is not an argument for the existence of that something. We see in Socrates, and Plato, still the mysticism and pseudo-philosophy that would only be destroyed when British empiricism tried, once more, to understand how knowledge comes to be 鈥� ending in Hume鈥檚 radical scepticism and Kant鈥檚 failed attempt to restore some Platonic Idealism.
In sum: Plato tries to derive the existence of empirical objects from analytic deductions 鈥� something which has clouded philosophy for way too long. Even now, there is much too much mysticism involved in certain branches of philosophy 鈥� deducing supposed knowledge from imperceptible realms. Also, Plato had an excuse for his flaws 鈥� limited knowledge 鈥� and as a creative mind, he was paving the way for future philosophy to ride on 鈥� this cannot be said of more modern speculative philosophers like Hegel, Husserl and Heidegger. Still, it鈥檚 interesting stuff to read, and The Last Days of Socrates (2003) is a decent collection of four of Plato鈥檚 most important and influential works.
The first dialogue, Euthyphro, takes place at the Athenian court, when Socrates has to wait for his trial to begin. There, while waiting, he meets a man, Euthyphro, who comes to accuse his father for murdering one of his slaves. The slave had killed someone from Euthyphro鈥檚 father鈥檚 household, so Euthyphro鈥檚 father tied up the slave, put him in a ditch and went to the Athenian court to ask what he should do. After he came back, the slave had died from hunger and thirst, so Euthyphro decides to take his own father to court and let the judges decide if they convict the man for murder or not.
Socrates naturally begs the question: why do you think it is good to take your own father to court? After which Euthyphro ends up in a Socratic dialogue which centres around the question of what is pious? Pious, because Euthyphro tells Socrates that it is good to accuse his own father because the gods approve of this. In summary: Socrates asks him whether (1) something is pious because the gods approve it, or (2) the gods approve it because it is pious? (1) leads to a definition of piety as slaving away at the whims of the gods, which cannot be really pious; (2) leads to a definition of piety as something in itself, something to which the gods have to submit, just like human beings need to. (1) is obeying a dictator while (2) makes the gods superfluous.
So Euthyphro counters that Piety is a subdivision of Justice. Justice can be split up into just according to humans (treating other human beings well) and just according to gods (offering to the gods what鈥檚 due to them). Euthyphro answers that human piety offers gratitude to the gods, but, according to Socrates, this brings one back to the original question: why do the gods then approve of this? Now, Euthyphro has enough, leaves Socrates and the dialogue ends.
In the Apology, Socrates offers his defence speech, after his accusers have brought the charges against him. Socrates is accused of being an atheist (i.e. not believing in the gods that the State prescribes) and a corrupter of morality (i.e. teaching the young to think for themselves and not believe arguments based on authority/expertise).
Socrates defends himself in a rather apathic way, not caring much about what will happen to him. The only thing he cares for is to stick to his principles. He says he is no atheist since he believes in God (his own God, not the Athenian gods); he is not a teacher since he doesn鈥檛 ask money for his dialogues and he doesn鈥檛 teach any subject; and he doesn鈥檛 know anything, that鈥檚 the only thing he knows, so he could never corrupt his conversational partners anyway.
Many years ago, the Oracle at Delphi told a friend of Socrates that Socrates is the wisest of men. To find out why, he went to the people who are supposed to be knowledgeable experts in their fields: politicians, poets and skilled craftsmen. But by questioning these people, Socrates found out that all of them pretended to know things while in actuality they didn鈥檛 know anything. And not only this, this didn鈥檛 even know that they didn鈥檛 know anything.
So, Socrates pleads 鈥榥ot guilty鈥�, since he has done no harm to anyone 鈥� rather the reverse: he has enlightened people and has protected the Athenian people from making certain mistakes. He warns the jury (which were judges as well), that they have made a big mistake by ordering Socrates鈥� to die and that Athens will pay for it. Without knowledge, Athens will not be virtuous.
We see here the upright dogmatists not bending his back in front of resentful, lowly opponents. He is even haughty enough to laugh away the offer to live, by either excusing himself, escaping from prison or paying a fee 鈥� in fact, he supposes his punishment to be that the State will take care of him in a fashionable manner, providing food and shelter, out of gratitude for his work.
When in his cell, awaiting his day of reckoning, Socrates is visited by friends. One of them, Crito, is the main personage in the third dialogue, Crito. Crito comes to visit Socrates to beg him to escape his prison cell and live somewhere else and see his three children grow up. Socrates replies that escaping prison would mean breaking the Athenian law and hence injuring the State and the Laws. Injuring someone is injustice, and being virtuous forbids injustice. Socrates has two options: convince the State of its mistake (which he failed to do) or to undergo punishment.
In this dialogue, Plato lets Socrates explain how the Laws are almost a personage on their own 鈥� Socrates claims the laws birthed him, reared him and when he turned 17 (the age at which a child became an adult), he voluntarily entered into a contract with the State. He could have left, then and in the meantime, but he didn鈥檛. This signals the willing submission to the State and its Laws. Escaping prison now would mean breaking the law; being just requires Socrates to undergo his punishment (i.e. die).
Again, we see here the dogmatist who feels upright and superior to all the hypocrites around him 鈥� a typical academic attitude, which can be seen in many academics in our own time as well. The feeling of superior knowledge and the position that entitles someone to exclaim truths 鈥� never mind all the fallacies involved here.
Anyway, the final dialogue, the Phaedo, explains how Socrates lived in his final moments. A group of friends visit him, and are grieved and worried about their friend鈥檚 nearing death. Socrates tries to argue them out of their emotions by claiming that they should be happy for him. Why? Because, being a philosopher, he will in a very short time become an immortal soul again, soaring to heavenly heights, since he has led a good life. The gods chain souls in fragile, corruptible and corrupting bodies. They will reward a man for living a life of contemplation, resisting all the bodily desires such as food, drinks and sex.
Most of the people will succumb to the bodily seduction and lead a life of debauchery and ignorance. The gods will punish these souls by reincarnating them as stupid, lowly animals, such as donkeys and flies. People who do better will be reincarnated as social animals, bees and ants, for example. The most purest of souls, those who devote their entire life to loving wisdom (i.e. literally, the philosophers), will be best off 鈥� they will be rewarded in the afterlife and meet the gods and other great men.
This is the picture of the afterlife that Socrates paints. But why should his friends believe him? Because of his arguments. Socrates thinks that he can logically prove the existence of an immortal (literally un-dying) and imperishable soul. Composites can break down in their constituents, which can form new composites 鈥� hence, these substances are changing, perceptible and mortal. Elements, though, cannot 鈥� by definition 鈥� be broken down in more elementary constituents 鈥� hence, these substances are unchanging, imperceptible and immortal. These elements can only be abstracted from perceptible things and hence perceptible things can only resemble these abstract things in more or less degrees. Plato identifies these imperceptible things as Ideas, or Forms, and the sensible things as material objects, which partake in these Ideas.
The soul is deemed to be such an immortal and imperceptible element, and hence cannot be destroyed (literally is un-dying). So, when we observe corpses decompose, we see composites break down in their elements. But the soul, as a life-giving element, cannot be destroyed so it has to go somewhere after the body dies. The soul become a pure reality, a pure Idea, again 鈥� just like it was before it was tied town to a fragile body by the gods. Also, we can know that our soul existed before our births be turning the Plato鈥檚 theory of knowledge as recollection. We know things that cannot come from sense-perception, so this knowledge but somehow already exist in our souls before we were born as organisms. This proves that the soul exists before we are born as organisms and that the soul knew much but forgot things (possibly due to bodily distractions).
The Apology is basically one long argument to prove the existence of the soul as an immortal, imperceptible, infinite thing. It is Plato鈥檚 finest expos茅 of his theory of Ideas (or Forms) and it offers us the mechanism by which these Ideas operate to create the world around us and all the change in it. Building on Pre-Socratic notions, Plato explains that the universe was ordered out of mixed substances by Intelligence, and that Intelligence partakes in certain objects in the universe, giving these objects life, motivation and reason. The human soul is such an intelligent thing, partaking in Intelligence in more or lesser degrees.
I can see how this mysticism might appeal to people, deriving true reality from the endless bombardment of sense-experience. Our senses are limited and prone to errors, so it鈥檚 very comfortable to look for stability behind all the apparent change. But it is a logical fallacy, none the less 鈥� you cannot treat existence as a predicate. Existence is not a quality that objects can possess or lack. You cannot claim that because I can abstract a perfect circle from observations from imperfect, worldly circles (e.g. in the sand), this abstraction thus exists. Thinking something is not an argument for the existence of that something. We see in Socrates, and Plato, still the mysticism and pseudo-philosophy that would only be destroyed when British empiricism tried, once more, to understand how knowledge comes to be 鈥� ending in Hume鈥檚 radical scepticism and Kant鈥檚 failed attempt to restore some Platonic Idealism.
In sum: Plato tries to derive the existence of empirical objects from analytic deductions 鈥� something which has clouded philosophy for way too long. Even now, there is much too much mysticism involved in certain branches of philosophy 鈥� deducing supposed knowledge from imperceptible realms. Also, Plato had an excuse for his flaws 鈥� limited knowledge 鈥� and as a creative mind, he was paving the way for future philosophy to ride on 鈥� this cannot be said of more modern speculative philosophers like Hegel, Husserl and Heidegger. Still, it鈥檚 interesting stuff to read, and The Last Days of Socrates (2003) is a decent collection of four of Plato鈥檚 most important and influential works.
March 31, 2021
I have previously reviewed:
Euthyphro--review
Apology--review
Crito--review
Phaedo--review
Now I review the Penguin Classics edition translated by Hugh Tredennick and Harold Tarrant with an introduction by Harold Tarrant. This edition contains extras: a General Introduction, a introduction to each of the four selections listed above, and a postscript to Phaedro. The extras are intended to be informative without being arcane. The editor has focused much on philosophy and some on rhetoric. Since I understand rhetoric better than philosophy, I was glad to find some rhetorical comments in the extras.
Read these four selections with reading buddies at GR Catching Up on the Classics. We are reading into 2022 various works of Plato, including The Republic.
Euthyphro--review
Apology--review
Crito--review
Phaedo--review
Now I review the Penguin Classics edition translated by Hugh Tredennick and Harold Tarrant with an introduction by Harold Tarrant. This edition contains extras: a General Introduction, a introduction to each of the four selections listed above, and a postscript to Phaedro. The extras are intended to be informative without being arcane. The editor has focused much on philosophy and some on rhetoric. Since I understand rhetoric better than philosophy, I was glad to find some rhetorical comments in the extras.
Read these four selections with reading buddies at GR Catching Up on the Classics. We are reading into 2022 various works of Plato, including The Republic.
November 27, 2011
I haven't read much Plato since my college years. I loved the Apology, and the first 2/3 of Phaedo and I enjoyed the rest (Euthyphro, Crito, and end of Phaedo). I loved coming across phrases and quotes that I've heard again and again: "The unexamined life is not worth living... is there not one true coin, for which all things ought to exchange?--and that is wisdom... As for me, all I know is that I know nothing..." Amen.
May 13, 2019
亘賴 賳馗乇賲 賵噩賵丿 丌丿賲賴丕蹖蹖 賲孬賱 爻賯乇丕胤 讴賲讴 夭蹖丕丿蹖亘賴 丿賳蹖丕 賳賲蹖讴賳賴. 丕賮乇丕丿蹖讴賴 賮賯胤 賳賯丿 蹖丕 爻賵丕賱 賲蹖讴賳賳 . 丿賳蹖丕 亘蹖卮鬲乇 亘賴 丌丿賲賴丕蹖蹖 賳蹖丕夭 丿丕乇賴 讴賴 乇丕賴 丨賱蹖 丿丕卮鬲賴 亘丕卮賳.
趩賳丿丕賳 丕夭 卮禺氐蹖鬲 爻賯乇丕胤 禺賵卮賲 賳蹖賵賲丿.
丕賲丕 丕賵賳 噩賲賱賴 卮 乇賵 丿賵爻鬲 丿丕卮鬲賲: 賵賯鬲蹖 蹖賴 丨讴賵賲鬲蹖 讴爻蹖 乇賵 賲蹖讴卮賴貙 賲禺丕賱賮蹖賳 丕賵賳 丨讴賵賲鬲 丕夭 賲賯鬲賵賱 蹖賴 賯丿蹖爻 賲蹖爻丕夭賳貙 賮賯胤 鬲丕 賲禺丕賱賮蹖賳 亘蹖卮鬲乇蹖 亘乇丕蹖 丨讴賵賲鬲 丕蹖噩丕丿 讴賳賳.
讴鬲丕亘賵 乇賵夭 噩賲毓賴 亘蹖爻鬲賲 丕乇丿蹖亘賴卮鬲 賲丕賴 丿乇 賴賮鬲賲蹖賳 讴卮蹖讴 夭賳丕賳 丕賱夭賴乇丕 鬲賲賵賲 讴乇丿賲.
賴賲賵賳 爻丕丿賴 鬲乇蹖賳貙 賵 賱匕鬲亘禺卮 鬲乇蹖賳 讴卮蹖讴蹖. 讴賴 亘丕 賲丕乇蹖丕 賵 賳诏丕乇 诏匕乇賵賳丿蹖賲.
趩賳丿丕賳 丕夭 卮禺氐蹖鬲 爻賯乇丕胤 禺賵卮賲 賳蹖賵賲丿.
丕賲丕 丕賵賳 噩賲賱賴 卮 乇賵 丿賵爻鬲 丿丕卮鬲賲: 賵賯鬲蹖 蹖賴 丨讴賵賲鬲蹖 讴爻蹖 乇賵 賲蹖讴卮賴貙 賲禺丕賱賮蹖賳 丕賵賳 丨讴賵賲鬲 丕夭 賲賯鬲賵賱 蹖賴 賯丿蹖爻 賲蹖爻丕夭賳貙 賮賯胤 鬲丕 賲禺丕賱賮蹖賳 亘蹖卮鬲乇蹖 亘乇丕蹖 丨讴賵賲鬲 丕蹖噩丕丿 讴賳賳.
讴鬲丕亘賵 乇賵夭 噩賲毓賴 亘蹖爻鬲賲 丕乇丿蹖亘賴卮鬲 賲丕賴 丿乇 賴賮鬲賲蹖賳 讴卮蹖讴 夭賳丕賳 丕賱夭賴乇丕 鬲賲賵賲 讴乇丿賲.
賴賲賵賳 爻丕丿賴 鬲乇蹖賳貙 賵 賱匕鬲亘禺卮 鬲乇蹖賳 讴卮蹖讴蹖. 讴賴 亘丕 賲丕乇蹖丕 賵 賳诏丕乇 诏匕乇賵賳丿蹖賲.
January 2, 2015
You know, Socrates was kindof a dick.
September 27, 2021
Awarding stars to a book like this is not hard.
It is a factual recount of Socrates final days, this is worth 5 stars alone. So, I am afraid that much like his jury, I arrived with bias and I was unlikely to award any less than the full set of stars.
I can say I enjoyed the beginning and end much more than I enjoyed the central 50% but this is due to my impatience and not the content.
I recommend that everyone reads the beginning of this book, the trail and the sentencing of Socrates.
It is a factual recount of Socrates final days, this is worth 5 stars alone. So, I am afraid that much like his jury, I arrived with bias and I was unlikely to award any less than the full set of stars.
I can say I enjoyed the beginning and end much more than I enjoyed the central 50% but this is due to my impatience and not the content.
I recommend that everyone reads the beginning of this book, the trail and the sentencing of Socrates.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,468 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.