Aristotle's definition of the virtue of nobility of spirit in Nicomachean ethics, and of what constitutes the excess and deficiency of this virtue, poses a problem when applied to that of Socrates in Plato's Apology. On the one hand, Socrates demonstrates nobility of spirit when he accepts his death sentence, even though he believes that he fulfills an important function in Athens and because he advises people without charging a fee. fees. On the other hand, Socrates displays timidity because he does not broadcast his beliefs in public affairs and does not distinguish between the rich and the poor, which would be a characteristic of a kind-hearted person small. Aristotle's criteria for nobility of spirit make us reflect on the question of whether Socrates is always virtuous. During his defense speech, Socrates displays the characteristics of both a nobility of spirit and a small soul, indicating a flaw in Aristotle's definition of virtue, since according to Aristotle, one cannot be both virtuous and deficient in a virtue. to plagiarism. Get a Custom Essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get Original EssaySocrates fits the definition of nobility of spirit because he does not spare his life, even though he believes that he does not deserve the death penalty. Even though he believes he has been given a divine role to make Athens better, Socrates understands that the best thing to do is to accept his death sentence. He believes that because he is “superior to the majority of men,” imploring the jury by bringing in family members and asking for acquittal would be considered shameful (Plato 35a). He does not object to his death sentence because being condemned for defending his beliefs would be a greater honor than being recalled for playing “a pitiful drama in court” (Plato 35b). Aristotle's definition of nobility of spirit applies in this case because Socrates does not necessarily believe that the death penalty is what he deserves, but rather that it is a more honorable option than to ask for mercy. According to Aristotle, there is “no honor worthy of total virtue” (Aristotle 1124a 7-8). By avoiding the shame of asking for mercy, Socrates is able to aim more closely at the honor of which he is worthy. Aristotle also states that the great-souled person will not spare his life in the face of great dangers (Aristotle 1124b 7-8). Socrates does not think his life is so great that he should save it. He tells the judges after his death sentence that he is still convinced that he has not harmed anyone or himself (Plato 37b), but he does not spare his life, because it is not worth it to be shamed by pleading for a different punishment.Socrates' willingness to help others without asking for payment in return is another reason why Socrates would fit Aristotle's definition of nobility of spirit. The noble person asks for nothing, or almost nothing, but is ready to help others willingly (Aristotle 1124b 17-18). Socrates fits this claim as he maintains that he does not “undertake to teach people and demand remuneration for it” (Plato 19d). By spreading his beliefs, Socrates benefits others, but he asks for nothing in return. He questions the others in an attempt to stir up the city because that is why he believes he was placed in the city. The noble person is also one whose “possessions are noble but unprofitable” (Aristotle 1125a 12). Socrates does not have many possessions, living in great poverty, since he does not charge for his occupation of questioning people to show them that they are not wise (Plato 23b). He is self-sufficient because he does not need material goods to continue to propagate his beliefs.At the same time, however, Socrates would be considered a small soul because he did not strive for greater honor by disseminating his beliefs in public affairs. The man of small soul is someone who “deprives himself of what he is worthy of” and is akin to the timid rather than a foolish person (Aristotle 1125a 22, 24-25). Socrates is content to advise people in private matters but refuses to venture out in public to advise the whole city because he thinks he would be long dead if he had tried to participate in public affairs (Plato 31c-e) . Trying to advise the city by participating in politics would have been foolish, because if he had died, Socrates would not have been able to pass on his beliefs to anyone. Socrates took a more moderate approach by intervening only in private matters, so he would not be considered vain, since the vain person is foolish because he is ignorant of his worth (Aristotle 1125a 28). Taking this more moderate approach, however, would be considered small-souled and timid, because the small-souled person would have had to "strive to obtain the things of which he was worthy" (Aristotle 1124b 26-27). There is a problem in this situation because whether or not Socrates chose to advise the audience, he would have acted stupidly or timidly. It seems that it is impossible to reach the golden mean, but Aristotle recognizes that it is sometimes better to lean towards one excess rather than another. In this case, acting stupidly would be closer to haughtiness, because the smallness of the soul is more opposed to haughtiness than to vanity (Aristotle 1125a 32-3). Although Socrates served twice in public life, he did not actively broadcast his beliefs as he did in private affairs. While serving in the Hall during the Thirty, Socrates simply left when he and the rest of the Hall were ordered to bring Leo from Salamis to be executed, which he considered unjust (Plato 32c- d). He was able to remain true to his beliefs about what he considered right and wrong by not participating, but he did not remain in public life to save Leon's life or to continue to propagate his beliefs. Another indication that Socrates lacks the mark of nobility of mind is that he is also willing to question anyone, whether rich or poor (Plato 33b). According to Aristotle, the noble person must be “dignified in his behavior towards people of distinction or wealth, but unpretentious towards people of intermediate status” (Aristotle 1124b 18-20). Socrates makes no distinction between those who are well off and those who are not. He uses the same method of questioning for everyone as long as everyone is willing to listen and not interested in hierarchy. Superiority over the rich would be considered impressive by Aristotle, but superiority over the poor would mean nothing because it is easy (Aristotle 1124b 22-23). Since Socrates exhibits the same behavior towards people of all types, he does not fit this definition of nobility of spirit. It makes no distinction between the poor and the rich; instead, it only differentiates between people who are willing to listen or not. Additionally, Socrates tells the jury that he used to spend time in the market place, near the bankers' tables (Plato 17c). This shows that he spent more time interacting with the masses rather than distinguished or wealthy people. Socrates is not unpretentious towards those who do not stand out, characteristic of noble people. This is another indication of his little soul behavior. Many of the actions described by Socrates during his defense speech and acceptance of the death sentence would be.