In other words, what specific characteristics of the pious/god-loved acts specifically makes the act pious/god-loved. The answer to this should be that the reason the act is pious will differ on a case to case basis such as they do to individual humans. One doesn’t love everything that they love for the same reason. Someone may love the beach because they find it beautiful and love their brother because of the connection that has been fostered between the two. This answer will not satisfy Socrates, promoting further questions of the underlying cause of the love.
From the Apology, Plato shows how Socrates was unyielding in his morals. Any sensible person would have taken the choice to evade death and accepted the ignorant life was the best. However, Socrates defies this by stating the conjecture to the court that to fall to the swift wickedness is worse than death. With this, Plato is defining the logic of Socrates soul is right rather than the evident fact of what the court laws describe. In his passage of Crito, Plato examines the thought of honor in following through one’s own promise.
When it comes to justice, Polemarchus believes that justice is “…helping friends and harming enemies.”. Socrates questions this point of view because according to Polemarchus’ view point, only the people who are close to him and in his circle of friends would be worthy of any kind of Justice. Polemarchus is wrong in this viewpoint because if only the people that you know who are of your similar social status and you interact with on a day to day basis are considered friends, what of those that you do not know? Or what of those who are not of your social status, that you do not interact with? Socrates questions this by asking, “Do you mean by friends those who seem to be good to an individual, or those who are, even if they don't seem to be, and similar with enemies?”.
Glaucon further acknowledges an additional set of goods which people “love for their own sake, and also for the sake of their consequences” (36), such as peace or intellect. Despite Socrates’ acceptance of these points, the two remain at war over how these points holistically apply to justice. Is it being just only consequentially valuable, or does it carry any instrumental benefit on its own sake? To further his argument, Glaucon performs a thought experiment – the Ring of Gygesthat – in attempt to discover the underlying motivation for acting justly. Glaucon describes a situation in which both a perfectly just person and a perfectly unjust person possess a ring that could make them invisible, thereby allowing them to act without fear of consequences (38).
After reading The Defense of Socrates, many may question the premises on which Socrates’s argument rests. However, I believe there is a more important matter to consider that lies not within his words Socrates, but within his deductive reasoning and the unstated conclusion of said rash reasoning. The cornerstone of Socrates’s dashing defense is simple: one should value tr¬¬uth, wisdom, and self-worth over superficial gains and reputation. However, in making this case he also crafts a potentially controversial claim: that the best life is one in which one ignores their reputation and superficial desires. While reputation and materialism are not the crux of Socrates’s argument—they are really just asides he brushes off—they are an aspect of
In accordance with the previous statements, Plato unites the ideas of justice and equality by not accepting the societal norms of this time period. Equally important, Plato’s introduction of these forward-thinking ideas may have been the planting of a seed, in the sense that he induced thoughts about equality in his community. In understanding that there is not a correlation between one’s gender and one’s nature, equality is easier to attain in the just
Virtue is important when people consider their own characters: virtues are what defines a person, what they stand for, what they believe in. The argument made here is that virtue is a type of knowledge, as Plato states in Meno. In Meno, Socrates and Meno talk about how virtue is not a type of knowledge, up until they describe it. Socrates says, “If then virtue is something in the soul and it must be beneficial, it must be knowledge, since all the qualities of the soul are in themselves neither beneficial nor harmful, but accompanied by wisdom or folly they become harmful or beneficial.” (88c4-88d2) Wisdom is necessary for the characteristics of the soul, such as that brashness is a result of courage without wisdom, and because an understanding is necessary to have virtue, it is a characteristic of
Loyalty is the glue that holds marriages or friendships together. Without loyalty there would be no trust in one another, and all of these relationships would be broken. Loyalty is quite simple to fulfill, but at times can be even easier to fail. Specifically, in marriages, loyalty is not just remaining married to one’s spouse, but is also staying true to all the promises one made, and putting oneself before the other. Loyalty plays a key role in Odysseus’ and Penelope’s marriage in the epic poem “The Odyssey” by Homer, translated by Robert Fagles, but it is debatable if Odysseus is truly loyal to his selfless wife, Penelope.
states that are praiseworthy are the ones we call virtues” just having these virtues does not mean one is living the good life. We must also be living with these virtues According to Aristotle, “happiness is an activity of the soul (16).” In order to achieve this true happiness, we must be living a life of virtue. This happiness is not to be confused with the good we seek in our every action, for these goods in most cases, are short lived and usually meant for our own benefits rather than the community. For example, one man steals food from a homeless shelter while the other donates to it. Both are reaching a state of happiness, but one has done so in virtue, while the other is only satisfying a bodily need.
According to Aristotle, happiness is the ultimate goal that everyone seeks. “Happiness is of all things the one most desirable, and it is not counted as one good thing among many others” (p. 51). He explains that people have a different interpretation of what happiness really is, he explains that everyone believes to be happy by “living well” and “doing well.” However, Aristotle states in page 58 that “happiness is a certain activity in the soul in conformity with perfect virtue” and only certain people can obtain happiness and this is only if they perform noble actions. “Nobody would call a man just who does not enjoy acting justly, nor generous who does not enjoy generous actions” (p. 54). And if an individual performs noble actions towards others then they can reach happiness, but only if those actions are performed with the “help of instruments, as it were: friends, wealth, and political power” (p.54).
Adeimantus rejoined and claimed that no one wanted to be justice for its own sake, but for the reward they could get from it to have better lives. As Socrates had chosen from Glaucon’s classes, “second class of good, such as knowledge, sight, health, which are desirable not only in themselves, but also for their results”. Adeimantus forced Socrates to prove why he chose that. Socrates proved with example about a State, the Republic. To create the Republic people worked together.