Introduction
The term argument can be said to be a consecution of explanations that are used to persuade somebody of something or to present reasons as to why a conclusion should be accepted. Somebody with argumentative power is privileged since this capability with its cogency characteristics can help him or her put across their opinions in a conclusive manner. The intention of argument is the resolution of issues, whether social, political or economic Parsons, Sierra & Jennings (1998), assert that argument is a vital activity which for that matter is essential to people. Argument entails the application of logical thinking, emotive debate or moral reasoning. Still, arguing positively is believed to be productive in the end.
Usually, an argument is either inductive or deductive. Deductive arguments are based on the premise any true conclusions are an evidence of true hypotheses and that these true conclusions are established by rationale debate. On the other hand, deductive arguments are based on the fact that rational hypotheses have a positive correlation to true conclusions. Thusly, it insinuates that importantly; the summary takes after the supposition and inferences (Parsons, Sierra & Jennings, 1998).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Advocacy as an art involves the influencing of decisions within political, economic and social spectrums and organizations by one person or a group of people (Danzig, 2003). This art engages activities such as campaigns, public speaking and publication of researched articles that relate to social life and which, therefore, play an important role in the political scene.
Advocacy is represented by different distinct forms, say, for instance, social justice advocacy. The preoccupation of social justice activists is a reformation of undesirable social principles. They compel governing authorities to conform to the rule of law in order to attain an equal society. Notably, advocacy varies with political, social or economic environments and has basic similarities to them. Advocates majorly engage in the scrutiny of the application of public and by so doing create a friendly environment for vigorous public debate since in most cases political set ups are skewed towards social injustices.
Argument and Advocacy in Plato’s Apology
Many might misconstrue Plato’s apology to be an expression of remorse for his own personal shortcomings. However, within the Greek context, the word ‘apologia’ means ‘explanation.' Thus, Plato’s apology can be termed as a form of advocacy or as an explanation for benefit of Socrates who was on trial. Plato attested that Socrates was neither a Physicalist nor a Sophist. Socrates stood accused both of physicalism and sophism. According to his accusers, Socrates did research on matters pertaining the earth and the sky as well and was, therefore a physicalist. Besides, his sophism was characterized by his tendency to make weak arguments. Plato, in Socrates’ defence, argued that the allegation were merely general prejudices and that they had been made entirely in favour of the likes of Anaxagoras and Gorgias (Danzig, 2003).
In turn, Meletus accused Socrates of championing the corruption of the moral standing of Athenian youth. In his response, Plato further asserted the need to advocate for Socrates’ right to a free, fair trial. Moreover, he pointed that were Socrates to try corrupting the youth; it would take the youth themselves and not Meletus to voice disagreement with his methods. On the contrary, Plato was of the view that Socrates was a youth’s trainer. Still, in his opinion, Plato stated that in the event Socrates had harmed the youth unwillingly, he should be instructed and not rebuffed (Danzig, 2003).
Impiety was another one of the charges meted out against Socrates. To this end, Plato argues that given Socrates’ faith in Diamon, it cannot be true that he has no belief in divinities. Also, Plato inquired from the mass whether they could have beliefs in things for instance cloths, but lack faith in the people who put them on, that is, human beings. His intention was to relate that inquiry to divinity (Danzig, 2003).
Plato’s Apology in Relation to Contemporary Context
Wisdom was defined by Plato as knowing oneself. Socrates, on his part, termed it as the generation of truth and intellect. This cardinal virtue is vital to those who argue, who in the context of contemporary society either are civil rights activists or public speakers. This is because, in all these professions, wisdom is a necessity in order for impact to be felt. Wisdom revamps things that are viewed to be defective. Advocates ensure a system of checks and balances within society. However, without shrewdness, advocates cannot achieve any notable impact within the frameworks of society.
Advocates, most of whom act on the basis of volunteerism, make great contributions towards leadership and governance (Radaelli, 1995). Advocacy is necessary for the maintenance of civility and social order. Social justice advocates, in the same way as Socrates, rely on the goodwill of the masses in order to maintain their activities. Mass support forms a good basis for opposition to the abuse of power.
Prickling issues can amicably be sorted out by arguments. The players can eventually reason together and negotiate a way forward through such activities (Parsons, Sierra, & Jennings, 1998). Those who argue, noteworthy, are not in conflict throughout their lives. At one point they will sit on the table and sort out the pricking issues. For the one who loses an argument, accepting and moving on is expected from him or her. This can be said to be an art. One which propels one to limelight through their prowess in arguing.
In summary, the paper has tried to look at the definition of argument and advocacy and delved in a little bit on what each entails. It has further evinced that they are dissimilar concept though seem to be related. It went further in identifying aspects of argument and advocacy in Plato’s apology in defence of his comrade Socrates. Lastly, through knowledge and aspects acquired from Plato’s apology, this work has attempted to relate it to the contemporary context. Noteworthy, Plato’s skills in argument and advocacy is one that should be embraced and envied by many.
Reference
Danzig, G. (2003). Apologizing for Socrates: Plato and Xenophon on Socrates' behavior in court. In Transactions of the American Philological Association (Vol. 133, No. 2, pp. 281-321). The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Parsons, S., Sierra, C., & Jennings, N. (1998). Agents that reason and negotiate by arguing. Journal of Logic and computation , 8 (3), 261-292.
Radaelli, C. M. (1995). The role of knowledge in the policy process. Journal of European public policy , 2 (2), 159-183.
