The Death of Socrates and the Greek Handsome guys
In the Greek world, which is a city-state system, Sophists were actively debating, and Socrates was active in advocating the absolute truth contrary to their opinions.
In the Greek world, which is a city-state system, Sophists were actively debating, and Socrates was active in advocating the absolute truth contrary to their opinions. There are many questions hidden in Socrates' death. First, there is no written confirmation of what kind of people the 'Greek youth' means in the sin of misleading the 'Greek youth'. Second, historical testimony and records explaining the Greek region state state that Socrates was framed. Third, the Greek era at the time was an era of oratorism and politics.
These are the most prominent questions in Socrates' death. The mixture of the words oratory and the era of politics is a combination of unwritten languages, through which the contextual purpose of the Sophists of the time can be inferred. Herodotus described history. Oral language generates history as a useful testimony.
In other words, the amplitude of the language generated fluctuates through the distance from the time axis. The present, which is facing the limit of the time axis, erases the spoken history. Materialized language becomes an indicator of history. The language of 'the youth of Greek' is also a language according to the social keynote of the time, and as a speech about it, Socrates was guilty of seduction. In conclusion, Socrates' death is a contemporary basis.
In this passage, it can be seen that the people involved in Socrates’s death were those who tried to keep the social stance. Among the people who antagonized or fell against Socrates, the first to look at is Thrasymachus. Among the debates about the correctness of Socrates and Thrasymachus, the comparison between a doctor and a chieftain is to be examined.
The doctor in the strict sense asks if he is a moneymaker or a patient carer. Thrasymachus replies that he is a patient carer, and when the keyman is asked whether he is the captain of the crew or the sailor, Thrasymachus again replies that he is the captain of the crew. The reason they are called keymen is not because they are sailing, but because of their skills in command of the crew. Therefore, the technology is originally intended to seek benefits for each (seafarers).
However, since technology is intact and accurate in a strict sense, rather than thinking about the benefits of the technology itself, it thinks about the benefits of the technology to the objects involved. Therefore, no matter what kind of leader he or she is in charge of, he or she thinks or directs what is beneficial to him or to the person who receives the command without instructing him or to the person who works for him or her.
The interests of the strong, Thrasymachus says, can be changed at any time by benefits, he said, and even those with leadership skills dictate what benefits the side they work for. According to him, Socrates' interests are chosen to benefit the 'Greek youth', who are non-substantial language-materials, and for their interests to benefit themselves, Socrates must be a non-existent person.
Socrates, however, is a human being who lived and existed. In other words, Socrates was like the head of the 'Greek youth' and gave a lecture as their doctor and chieftain. He directed actions that worked for their benefit and benefited them.
But this is where the problem arises. If Socrates, a living Greek youth, decides to give a lecture, the interests and opinions of the young Greek people will not exist. Because it is Socrates' intention. Thrasymachus' sophistry becomes the argument here. His sophistry that profits belong to the strong and the fact that the interests are combined are groups and individuals who want profits also disappear with the beginning of Socrates' lecture. His thesis is a personal and sporadic utterance that does not conform to the sum of history, so history cannot be held accountable for its words.
As such, Socrates' existence and the absence of a 'Greek youth' can be a clue to solving Thrasymachus' paradox. However, if anyone thinks about his intentions, I would like to ask you. Since Thrasymachus' paradox is a discussion based on the time, it should be remembered that the era was huge for the act of decomposing the language and viewing it closely. That is the least honor that future generations can give for the history that preceded it.