Alcibiades Plato Analysis

A proper comprehension of this phrase, according to Latour (1999, p. 216) is sure to allow a better perception of the distinction between the new science from politics. Latour tries to present the relationship involving the respect for uncongenial natural laws and the fight against decadence, ludicrousness, and political mayhem. This implies that the destiny of reason and that of politics are intertwined and that any assault on reason makes "morality and social harmony unfeasible." Latour argues that Right is the only element that protects the society against Might is reason and that it should be protected. In sum, Socrates asserts that technology and science will kill the Body Politic but to Latour, the science is the only element that will save humanity and even politics from moral

The Republic is an inspection of the "Good Life"; the accord reached by applying pure reason and justice. The Republic can be read in several different ways: As an essay on political theory and practice: As a educational handbook or as a protection of moral behavior. For example. While we 'll take declaration of each of these constructions along the way, our crucial attention in what trails will be on the elementary supernatural and epistemological subjects, opening questions about who we are, what is real, and about how we know it. Read in this style, the discussion as a whole invites us to share in Plato 's vision of our place within the ultimate structure of reality.

Socrates’ eros for philosophy is present from the beginning of the dialogue to the end, from the point that he dismisses the possibility of allowing anyone but himself to give display speeches until the end where he presents a rational account or what is considered to be a myth by some. Socrates explains in the Phaedrus that he does not have time to disprove myths, therefore referring to it as a “rational account” which further proves he is serious about not disproving the

There names are Rene Descartes and Plato. Plato and Descartes are two Greek philosophers that believe in Rationalism, yet both have a different perspective of it. I will explain both philosopher’s methods when it comes to viewing the everyday world, talk about their similarities and differences, and then choose Descartes’s method regarding Rationalism. I agree with Descartes method a lot more than Plato’s because I feel that inborn knowledge is a form of deception and escaping your reality, like Plato would suggest, would only leave you to be deceived even more. Both Plato and Descartes believe in Rationalism, and they also fear uncertainty.

Socrates allows Thrasymachus to entertain his ideas in a public setting, but questions his position on the fallibility and infallibility of rulers. Thrasymachus is in favor of the strong ruling as opposed to the weak, while Socrates believes that those with the proper knowledge and capabilities should rule over the general population. Through asking the correct questions, Socrates was able to deconstruct the argument that Thrasymachus believed was untouchable. Thrasymachus could have answered Socrates in a more successful way by putting more thought into his answers, and by treating Socrates with more respect. Due to Thrasymachus’ incapability of completing the aforementioned, Socrates has the stronger argument because he demonstrates that

By doing this we secure our fate and deny life itself. We deny the progression of humanity by denying a condition that makes us human. Which is the ability to evaluate and question life through our own eyes. An ability that Socrates argued for which ultimately led to his death. In this paper, I will highlight the importance of “The Apology” and how it contributed to its field as well as why it is still relevant today.

The ultimate goal of human life for Plato is to know and understand the truth or the “eidos” of the “good”. The only way for us to see this truth is through our minds. The truth is not accessible in the physical world but in the intellectual realm. For us to be happy or for use to know the truth is only when we are beyond our physical sense it is a totally different level. So according to Plato, “knowledge” and “virtue” are corollary meaning that as long as one exists the other will follow.

In Plato’s dialogue Republic, Book X, the main topic discussed is what type of republic would produce the best people and the best way of life. By having this written in dialogue format, readers are given the ability to think, with the speakers, about these ideas being put forth. The main idea Socrates discusses and believes in is that art should be banned from the republic because it’s imagery is imitated, unreal, and by the end of the dialogue he calls it out to be the works of wizards. To understand Socrates ideas of this topic, we must first understand the classification of objects and producers. According to him, the three types of producers are gods, craftspeople, and imitators (artists).

“Plato’s philosophy is an attempt to justify Socrates’ belief in the objectivity of moral virtues.” As one of Socrates’ most loyal disciples, Plato’s own philosophy was heavily influenced by Socrates’ own thoughts and teachings. Much of Plato’s philosophy is a direct extension of some of the questions Socrates posed, i.e., Socrates asked what justice is, and Plato explored this question in his own writings. It is Socrates’ code of ethics, however, that most closely corresponds with Plato’s ethics. The two philosophers believed strongly in the concept of eudaimonia, which is basic human well-being and goodness (Mastin, 2008). Much of Socrates’ ethics was built around this concept, which led to his ethical code becoming basically objective.

However, Socrates’ goal was not to gather evidence to make it seem as if he was putting all his efforts in saving his life. His goal was to make the court understand his beliefs prove which type of knowledge is worth knowing. When talking about the wise man he examined, Socrates said, “Neither of us actually knows what Beauty and Goodness are, but he thinks he knows, even though he doesn’t; whereas I neither know nor think I know.” This shows that Socrates proved he was more wise than the titled wise man because instead of faking the knowledge, that wasn’t too important, he accepted that he did not know which would result in him then seeking for