SOCRATES AND DEMOCRACY: Was Socrates a friend or enemy of democracy? Does Socrates help the democracy or tear it down?

QUESTION

SOCRATES AND DEMOCRACY: Was Socrates a friend or enemy of democracy? Does Socrates help the democracy or tear it down?

Writing a Good Political Theory Paper

Fall 2020

There is no perfect formula for writing a theory paper. Different papers will have

different strengths. The best papers combine intellectual and political curiosity with careful

attention to the text and clear writing.

Introduction

Like most other college papers, theory papers have a thesis or main argument. You

defend your thesis with evidence from the text. Theory papers require you to take a stand the

author’s argument and the issues you raise.

Steps to Start the Paper
Although you have a good deal of freedom in choosing your topic. Once you chosen

it, focus (narrow it down) and then develop the paper’s theoretical question. You need not

answer all the questions in the prompt, which is just a starting point.

Think about your own ideas concerning the theoretical questions.
Review key passages in the text that speak to the question. You might want to

paraphrase those passages and note alternative ways that they could be interpreted.

III. Key Elements of a Good Paper

An introduction which takes us from the present into the text and states a theoretical

question, problem, or dilemma. [For example: should majority rule in matters of moral

importance?]

State a clear thesis concerning the theorist’s position and your argument regarding the

theorist’s position. A good thesis is debatable. You could argue that Socrates is a philosopher,

but no one could disagree with you.

Define the key terms in your argument. In just a few sentences state the author’s

definition of the term, the Merriam-Webster definition of the term, and the definition you’re

using.

Announce the structure of your paper after your thesis. In what order will you make

your points.

Defend that thesis by interpreting and criticizing the text. Approximately 2/3 of the

paper should interpret (examine, analyze, and discuss) it, and 1/3 should take a stand on the

theorist’s position. Do not denounce the theorist, but you can disagree with their argument. You

can express your doubts and questions about the text and the issue you’re treading.

Address counter-arguments to your thesis.
Sum up your argument and evidence at the end.

Good Theory Paper

Common Dead Ends
“Both sides have plausible arguments.” Take a stand.
“I believe….” Give your arguments, not your opinions.
“This may be good in theory, but would never work.” Why is it good in theory?
“This may have been once a good idea, but it would not work today.” Why was it a

good idea?

In the introduction avoid sweeping statements of this sort: “Political philosophers have

been puzzled and intrigued by the notion of equality for centuries.” What question are you

examining and what does the theorist say about it?

Pro tips:

Clear writing and correct use of grammar count.

A good place to announce how each paragraph advances the argument is in its first

sentence. A topic sentence is like a car’s directional signal; it indicates to the reader where the

argument is going.

Quotations in a paper have two functions: to provide evidence and to present passages to

examine. You should examine several passages, and cite many, without directly quoting them (8-

10).

You should have at least one footnote, endnote, or bibliographic reference in the paper.

You can put page numbers in parentheses in the text. I prefer University of Chicago style, but

MLA is fine. You are not encouraged to read sources outside the text, but if you do, even if you

do not directly cite them, provide a footnote. Misunderstanding the theorist is fine. Using sources

other than the text without citing them is plagiarism. [See statement on Academic Honesty in

syllabus.]

How can you write 5-7 pages? Keep asking questions. Keep revealing doubts. Find more

passages to analyze.

A good theory paper helps you organize your thoughts about a significant text and a

problem relevant to our day.

September 5, 2020

Grading Sheet Political Theory Papers

August 30, 2015

Presentation
Does a title and concise thesis statement appear on the title page?
Is there a date, box number, L number only, and course title on the title page?
Is the paper printed on one side only, with numbered pages?
Does the paper have at least one complete bibliographic reference?
Introduction
Is there a statement of a problem or debate?
Does the introduction take us from our world to the issues discussed in the rest of the

paper?

Does the thesis appear at the end of the introduction?

Is the thesis about an idea?

Can it be supported by examining the text?

Body of Paper
Do you define key terms of the thesis?
Does the central argument control the paper?

Is it clear how each paragraph supports the thesis?

Are the structure and organization of the paper clear?

Are the steps of the argument easy to follow?

Does the paper use examples from the text to support the main argument?
Do you explain some important passages from the text?

Do you show how some of these passages could be interpreted differently?

Does the paper present some counter-arguments, counter-evidence, or doubts about the

thesis?

Conclusion
Does the paper offer a conclusion that sums up the main lines of argument and

evidence?

Does it state why we should care about the issues raised in the paper?
Style
Is the paper clearly written? Is it a pleasure to read?
Is the paper largely correct in spelling and grammar?

Stylesheet for Theory Papers

J.I. Miller

Fall 2018

Format for the Final Copy

All papers should have a title and a title page. Please put your thesis on the

title page.

The title page should identify the name of the class, section number, and the

date the paper was submitted.

Papers should be double-spaced. Justify the left margin, but leave the right

on ragged. Number the pages.

I prefer the font Times New Roman, 12 points.

Please submit the final paper in Word, not Google Docs or PDF.

Word spellcheck helps with spelling and grammar.

Citations

Each paper must have at least one footnote, endnote, or a bibliography page

that contains the bibliographic information for your source or sources. You could

do the page numbers in-line and a bibliographic citation at the end of the paper.

I prefer University of Chicago Style for footnotes or bibliography, but you

can also use MLA. A searchable database for Chicago Manual of Style may be

accessed through the Lafayette library web-site.

https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/home.html

Basically, the standard form is as follows: author, book title, translator

and/or editor, place, publisher, date, page. For example: Thomas More, Utopia,

trans. and ed. Robert M. Adams (NY: Norton, 1975), p. 12.

Beware that certain internet references (for example, Wikipedia or

dictionary.com) weaken your paper. You are safest to do your research using

actual books and articles or going on line through the Lafayette library web-site.

For example, you can get to the Merriam Webster Dictionary, Encyclopedia

Britannica, Oxford English Dictionary, and New York Times through the library

web-site.

List in the bibliography and works you consulted while working on the

paper. Do this even if you don’t draw quotations from the source.

Grammar

You can use the word “I” and tell personal anecdotes, but don’t overdo it.

“I feel” or “he or she feels” is not the same as “I think.” There is a crucial

difference between feeling, opinion, and argument.

Don’t use the word “man” when you mean people. Often using the plural

helps achieve gender neutrality.

Know the difference between “affect” and “effect”; “it’s” and “its,” “infer”

and “imply.”

In informal speech, many students say, “I want to build off that point.” In

writing, you should say, “I want to build on that point.”

To beg the question: “There’s a segment of the population that would be

enormously relieved if phrases like a question that begs an answer replaced the

usual begs the question uses. These are people who think using beg the question to

mean “to cause someone to ask a specified question as a reaction or response” is

completely and thoroughly wrong. There are probably more of these people than

you think, and they are judging the rest of us. For [those] people [like me–JM] the

only ‘correct’ way to use the phrase beg the question is with the meaning “to

ignore a question or issue by assuming it has been answered or settled.’”

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/beg-the-question

Recommended Reading

I don’t know a better book about how to research and write a paper than The

Craft of Research, Fourth Edition, by Wayne C. Booth and Gregory G. Colomb

(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2016). ISBN: 978-0226239736 You can

buy the book for Kindle or iBooks.

For improving your writing style, read William Strunk, Jr. and E.B. White,

Elements of Style, 4th Edition. NY: Pearson, 1999). Beware of the free Kindle

edition, which is a much different text.

Old School

When I was in college a professor told me that I could improve my writing

by “knowing the King James Bible and the works of Shakespeare until you love

them.” That still sounds right to me.

September 2, 2018

Subject	Law and governance	Pages	12	Style	APA

Answer

Socrates and Democracy: Was Socrates a Friend or Enemy of Democracy? Does Socrates help the Democracy or Tear it Down?

Democracy has been a preference in global development that, by extension, is claimed to facilitate the ancient Athens civilization. However, concepts of democracy have faced objections from Parthenon leading to photographing the democratic leaders alongside its ruins. This situation has led to heated debates in support or disputes of the roles of democracy in society. A review of Plato’s “The Apology” gives Socrates speech that was delivered during his trials for failure to recognize Athenian gods, and in extension, corrupting the thinking of the youths. In this brief, the analysis will be provided to answer questions whether Socrates was a friend or foe of democracy and how he helped in building or tearing it apart.

The Apology is an automatic account bringing an explanation of Socrates’s defense while facing the Athenian Council. The defense begins in a fascinating scene where Socrates explains his eloquence of speaking. Consequently, the accusations of Socrates’s life is presented in the manner he carries his daily activities.^[1] Socrates offers limited responses to a series of accusations against him, followed by an account to mitigate penalties that are to be imposed on the accused. According to the democratic view, everyone is right in his explanation and needs to be given time to express his/her view to attain a consensus ruling. On the other hand, questions are seeking to understand if Socrates upholds or fights democracy.

Concerns, whether Socrates helps democracy or break it apart, are critical aspects of considerations in this plot. Apart from talking about democracy, there is an aspect of practicing democratic rights that have been expressed in The Apology. During the trial face, Socrates demanded an expression mode that he could use to defend himself for charges that had been presented before him. This case saw the application of eloquence in his speech that would lead to a better understanding of his arguments. The debate was, however, realized when the accusers view this eloquence as manipulation to gain the judges favor in delivering the ruling. The democratic rights of young people who could buy Socrates’s argument are forming part of accusation during the trials. The central issues of the argument are thus presented in this plot with debates to understand Socrates’s view of democracy.

A review of this plot brings four parts that can be analyzed to realize Socrates’s support for democracy and his arguments. The introduction part begins with Socrates’s statements of apologetic speeches for the choice of language that he had decided to use for adequate expression of his points. The second account is packed with a series of accusations to Socrates’s daily life and activities that, according to the accusers, seemed to violate recognition of the existence of Athenian gods. Using conversational abilities, Socrates provides lengthy responses to the charges as a way of seeking redemption from impending judgments.

The third account is presented on this plot to illustrate how Socrates seeks to redeem himself in these accusations. According to the philosophy of democracy, an individual is entitled to a fair hearing before judgment is made on a case. This is what Socrates is portrayed to be seeking from the court that appears to annoy heal accusers. The accusers’ attempts include advisory to the judges to ignore oratory skills.^[2] The last account of the central argument is presented by Socrates’s prophetic warning on the influence of judges to make the final decision on the presented case. According to the accused, the judges may not live at ease following their conscience and ruling on the case presented against Socrates.

The accusations presented before the judges included a general statement from past actions. According to the accused, Socrates is an evil-doer who curiously seeks support from heaven and earth to make worse things look better. Further, the accusation presented in the plat indicates that the accused teaches doctrines that are considered evil to the Athenian society. In response to these allegations, Socrates says that the accusations lack a basis of argument and seeks to diminish his reputation. Further defense of this falsehood is Aristophanes who mentioned Socrates as a liar who claims to possess abilities for walking in the air with void knowledge. The additional accusation against Socrates was on rumors concerning his investigations for the heavenly and earthly thing. However, he disputed these claims as baseless indicating his lack of interest in physical science and had never possessed any wisdom in this discipline.

An additional illustration of Socrates’s claims is on his claim to the level of wisdom he possessed. This claim brought Chaerephon research to determine if there is anyone else wiser than Socrates among the Athenian communities. Following the negativity of the Delphi oracle, Socrates was surprised because he had never thought or considered himself wise when a comparison is conducted to others.^[3] The additional claim was that a group of young wealthy individuals had gained an interest in how Socrates exposed the ignorance of some individuals who had claimed to be wise. The response to this allegation was interesting as the accusers had resolved to seek answers from previous arguments on seeking knowledge from heaven and earth. Socrates invited Meletus who appeared to contradict himself during a question and answer session by Socrates.

From the presented points, several arguments presented for accusations to Socrates daily life and activities. The application of eloquence in the speech was to allow the truth to be gathered from Socrates’s defense. Further, the accusers need to realize that Socrates does not use rhetoric as they were likely to make the entire discussion vague by losing its original meaning. Concerning Aristophanes, his statements have contributed significantly to the realization of falsehood that has always been placed on Socrates. The trial exposes a more significant gap that can be concluded as a formed perception to attain the objective that is different from the original clause. Investigations on the matter above and beneath bring considerations to understand the relationship between Socrates and physical scientists. According to his explanation, he recognized the scientist’s work but felt the need to express his opinion following their findings.

Additional insight is provided in the plot concerning the level of wisdom that Socrates is purported to possess. In reviewing Chaerephone’s claims, there was negativity in wisdom expression. The oracle of Delphi appeared to confess that Socrates was the only wise man according to how it was written. Being clueless on this matter, Socrates decided to launch an investigation to determine the validity of this claim. After a series of investigations, the reality of ignorance exposure was seen in several people, including the politician who became any and started hating Socrates.^[4] Conclusions can thus be drawn that Socrates was indeed wiser than all those whom he had interacted with.

The plot presents a debate on how the accusation and defense were interpreted to attain a conclusion. In reviewing the first point of eloquence, the accusers had an opposing view that this was language beautification by Socrates to influence the court ruling. On the other hand, Socrates had developed a perception, Aristophanes, in his play The Cloud, sought to tarnish his reputation and no intentions of meeting the viewer’s objectives. A review of the oracle of Delphi brings interpretations that Chaerephon had only posted a challenge to influence other people who thought that they had better skills than Socrates. Interpretations of Meletus can be interpreted that he may have misunderstood the quest, and this resulted in a contradiction in the responses provided to the question. Had he been given time, he could not have disputed his responses.

Application of eloquence had implications on the accusers’ understanding. Having been given a chance to apply the colloquial style, the accused may have responded differently to posed questions. However, this response can affect as it may not have been fully understanding by the accusers to lay better grounds for judgment. Aristophanes is an artist who applies styles to meet his audience’s needs without necessarily meaning the choice of words used.^[5] It was, therefore, out of order for Socrates to assume that the Cloud was directed to diminish his reputation.

The group that has been evaluated for wisdom level may have been predetermined and scared of Socrates. Thus, making conclusions that Socrates was the wisest man might have been based on analysis with people who lack merits for wisdom. In the same manner, the young wealthy people may have not fully supported Socrates’ school of thought in the identification of ignorance but instead appeared to appreciate how to work in society. The argument of the accusers, therefore, may have been valid according to the provided consideration in the above issues. Socrates’s arguments in the conclusion of his defense are concerned with the human soul, thus failing to recognize the deity’s existence.

From the above plot, democracy is placed on the balance to understand the roles of people in making decisions and deciding if the decisions are right. In as much as voting was used to declare Socrates guilty, there are other considerations of aspects of democracy that brought a different perspective. First, the accused sought to use the best language that could be understood by all in passing the ruling. On the other hand, the plot depicts Socrates’s attempts to allow the democratic expression of ideas to attain the truth in every argument. At the end of the final judgment, Socrates had the option of appealing the decision or redeeming himself by seeking support from friends to buy his freedom. However, he decided to take the punishment as a form of expressing his democratic will.

Generally, the life and daily activities of Socrates indicated Socrates was indeed a true friend of democracy and believed in the idealistic approach of addressing issues. They were seeking proofs from critics and contributions to several ideas such as physical science depicted his contribution to the philosophical approach that the society needs to uphold in order to ensure that values of democracy are observed. Although the majority presented their views, the accusers gained favor Meletus, Anytus, and Lycon, which is contrary to what he thought the majority would be. In conclusion, Socrates was a friend of democracy who helped in developing its ideas.