Socrates does not give an exact definition of “harm.” I believe Socrates uses “harm” to mean an action that leaves an ill or damaging effect on someone or something. However, for Socrates is not cut and dry. Socrates places much more importance on a person’s justness rather than the physical being of a person. When comparing physical harm or bodily injuries to the spiritual harm of unjustness or wrongdoing, Socrates believes physical harm should not even be considered. This is evident when Socrates says, “You see, men of Athens, this is the truth of the matter. Wherever someone has …show more content…
Furthermore, I believe that Socrates was not justified to be confident in facing death. If we look at Socrates’ argument and define premise one as death has two options and define premise two as both options are pleasant, Socrates reached the valid conclusion that death is pleasant. Despite being valid, this argument is not sound. Socrates claimed that he is not an expert in anything but quickly jumped to conclusions about what the result of death could be. In premise one, he declared that it could be either a “dreamless sleep” or a “transportation of souls to another world.” He did not consider there could be more than two outcomes of death, including options that would have been undesirable. For example, he didn’t consider reincarnation into a living object like a flower or plant. Despite being alive, these organisms cannot practice philosophy, what he was “stationed” to