political philosophy paper

I’m working on a Political Science exercise and need support.

Please write a 8-10 page, 12 pt font, double spaced paper on the following prompt. Answer all the following four sections. Please do not plagiarize. Please do not use any outside sources other than, Four Texts on Socrates: Plato’s “Euthyphro”, “Apology of Socrates”, and “Crito” and Aristophanes’ “Clouds” and the two attached texts.

First, identify the central problems in the Antigone. What is it that Socrates/Plato think they are responding to? What is at stake in their response? And why is this important?

Second, explain why in the Euthyphro and Apology,Socrates seems to suggest that philosophy is good for the city. Why does he claim that he is a benefit to the city?

Third, despite Socrates/Plato’s claim about benefiting the city, it seems to be the case, as we see in theEuthyphro(through irony), Apology,and Crito, that philosophy may not be much help. Why is this the case? Why does this necessitate the use of Irony? What does it say about human nature? What does this tell us about the relationship between philosophy and politics?

Fourth, conclude with a few comments on the success or failure of Philosophy’s response to the Poets and the Traditions of Athens.

WHEN ANSWERING THE ABOVE QUESTIONS INCORPORATE THE BELOW QUESTIONS:

A. In the Antigone, we are confronted by several issues: the problem of who rules and why; the expansion of individual agency and autonomy; the theologico-political problem.

Please explain what is at stake in each of these issues. And, explain why the Antigoneis a tragedy? Why does it end the way it does, and what does this suggest about the traditions of the city?

B. What does philosophy do? What does it desire? Do you think that everyone is capable of being a philosopher? Should everyone philosophize, and philosophize about politics?

C. What is Irony? Why does Plato deploy it? What are the moral implications of Irony? What does the presence of, and need for, Irony tell us about human nature and Politics?

D. Plato’s first response to the sort of problems we encounter in Antigonecomes in his dialogue the Euthyphro. Here we see Plato trying to rehabilitate Socrates and philosophy. What is Plato, through Socrates, saying about the contribution of philosophy to the politics of the city?

Here, I just want you to get the story straight. For example, where does Euthyphro’s conception of piety come from? Why is Socrates suspicious of Euthyphro’s “knowledge” and his arrogance? Why is Socrates ironic with him? Is this acceptable, or just mean spirited and nasty?

What is Irony? What does Socrates’ turn to Irony tell us about human nature and the relationship between philosophy and politics? Why does the deployment of Irony constitute the dark truth of the relationship between philosophy and politics?

Does the traditional Athenian conception of piety contribute to political stability or instability? Why does Socrates think that his idea of piety may be more useful politically?

Socrates talks about the form or idea of piety. What are the characteristics of the forms? (Here, also, you should take a few minutes to reflect on Socrates’ important question: Is it pious because the Gods love it, or do the Gods love it because it is pious. Put simply: Do we love something because it is ours [thought in terms of our city, our church, our ethnicity…] or do we love it because it is worthy of love?)

What does Socrates’ conception of piety do to the traditional Athenian conception of piety? Does Socrates corrupt, or help, Euthyphro?

E. Continuing our collection of facts, lets get straight about the Apology of Socrates.

Socrates claims that he is facing two sets of accusers, one old and one new. Who are the old accusers? What are their accusations? Why does Socrates fear them more than the new accusers? How does Socrates defend himself? Do you think this is sufficient? Do you think that Socrates knows he’s a goner? What about the new accusers? What are their charges? How does Socrates defend himself?

Also, in this dialogue, we get an explanation of Socrates’ life, and an explanation of the activity of philosophy. Why does Socrates claim that he is a benefit to the city? Why does he claim that he avoided participating in the politics of the city? What does this say about the tension between philosophy and the city?

F. Finally, we must engage the Crito.

What does the very setting and opening of the dialogue symbolize? Why has Crito come to see Socrates? What are Crito’s reasons for doing this? What does this say about Crito, and his relation to Socrates? What does this indicate about the relationship between philosophy and the city? What do the Laws say to Crito? Why does Socrates have the Laws say what they do to Crito?