The connection was that the Greeks came to think of human virtue or excellence as , since the life of the Greek city (, ) seemed about the most noble activity for human participation -- a formula that excluded women from human excellence, since women were largely excluded from politics.
If those in power find their power limited, and their jurisdiction restricted to only certain things, where they cannot just operate at their discretion, then this is the "rule of laws, not of men" -- where the law, not the will of the ruler, tells people what they can and cannot do.
There is something fitting in this.
The instructor was well prepared and his presentation, level of expertise as well as communication skills on the topic of SMS were all excellent. I would recommend to my section and company
There is no screening of jurors.
NASH has shown a professional approach to training quality and logistic management. I have participated in many training courses but never experienced a superb arrangement and a delivery of quality training. Sincere thanks and appreciation to a well done job
The jury is pretty much any free adult male citizen who shows up.
However, Socrates warns us, "IF someone is wise in these things." A very big "if." Such a careful qualification is always a red flag when we are dealing with Socrates.
The jury has all but absolute power.
This training has enhanced my understanding of Risk Based Auditing and after this training and into the future I am sure I can prioritize my audits based on risks and allocate my resources in a more effective way
At the same time, there was not much in the way of rules of evidence.
"Lest Meletus bring more cases..." An ironic jest that Meletus might sue Socrates for defamation or libel on behalf of the Presocratics and Sophists whose knowledge he could be seen disparaging.
After the defense, the jury votes innocent or guilty.
Since a great many people, even in the jury, have actually heard Socrates talking at one time or another (since he does so publicly), he confidently calls on them to inform everyone else if Socrates has ever talked much about any of the subjects imputed to him.
In this case, Socrates is barely (by 30 votes) found guilty.
Thus, not only has Socrates nothing to do with the Presocratics and Sophists, but if the jury were to rely, not on rumor and reputation, but on their own familiarity with his activities, the charges against him could be laid to rest.