Of the thousands of mystic, archetypal and paradigmatic individuals in human history, it would be a safe bet for one to state that Socrates was one of the most distinguished, yet also most seemingly paradoxical ones whose view of life and teachings varied significantly for to one person to another. Although he was known to have stood clearly for his values and fought relentlessly against others; namely those of the Sophists , I daresay that even one with much experience in the field of philosophy might still, at first sight, find some of his statements to be self-contradictory. One such example would be his simultaneous belief in the nonexistence of weakness of will and how that individuals who do evil things do them against their will or nature; in other words, everyone believes what they do is for the best.
While I should be limiting the purpose of this essay to merely explaining the meaning behind Socrates' claims, I shall delve into a broader level and try to lighten, if not eliminate what seems controversial to you.
You might have taken notice, dear reader, of what I had meant earlier by paradoxical: one might almost think, at this point, that the above-mentioned Socratic reasoning was actually based on the principles of moral relativism, one of the values he spent his life's energy fighting against. Doubtlessly, it was not. However, I urge you to believe me when I say that such an assumption is totally plausible, for I had myself experienced that feeling when I first read about the philosopher. You might be already asking yourself such questions as: "Is that a generic thesis?" "If so, how does the sophos explain some of the more critical cases, such as murder crimes, drugs, and such?" and "Based on what kind of foundation or reasoning does Socrates make ...