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. Socrates cannot leave or escape because it would not acceptable. His whole life, he had the choice of leaving this city. However, he welcomed the knowing of what the laws stood for to take advantage of the city had to offer. Again, Plato is addressing the idea that a person's inner virtues are worth more than the circumstances that attempt to govern him. In The Republic, Plato moves to have Socrates debate the multitude of traits that can lead to a “just” man who can really live the good life. “The happiest man is he who is first in goodness and justice, namely the true king who is also king over himself.” (Plato) In view of this quote, Plato is making the affirmation the ideal life of prosperity is only achieved through holding true to one’s self. All of these writings come from the logic of what is judged, not by
In Book 1 of the republic, by Plato, we are introduced to two central figures in the argument of justice, Socrates and Thrasymachus.
It is challenging to lead a private life while truly fighting for justice. A man can fight for justice through examining the greatest issues in human nature that Socrates found essential to the private life. However, this knowledge can have the biggest effect when brought into the public life such as through teachings. These two things can then combine to reflect how the state should be changed. Socrates sometimes crossed this line himself, even if unknowingly. Through becoming a teacher of the young men who followed him in Athens, Socrates effectively began to enter the public life. He was able to influence others through sharing his conclusions of justice, self-examination, and piety, and by asking relentless questions. Socrates effectively showed that an individual can live a private and a public life, even if Socrates was not directly involved in the policy-making in Athens. An individual can combine these two aspects of life in a productive way allowing her/him to live a full existence. These individuals can become teachers, politicians, and activists who use their focus on justice and piety in their private lives to advocate and create laws that promote true justice for the rest of the
The world we live in is filled with crime, evil, and injustice, but do people have the desire to do bad things knowing that they are bad, or do they do them thinking that they are good? In this essay, I examine Socrates argument, found in Plato’s Meno, that no one knowingly desires bad things. If Socrates were right, it would mean that it is impossible for someone to perform a bad action based on their desire for that bad thing. Instead, all bad desires result from the ignorance of the person performing the action in falsely believing that the action is good. Though Socrates presents a compelling argument, I argue that it is possible for someone to act badly, all the while knowing that what they desire is bad. In order to establish my thesis, I will start by stating and explaining the argument that Socrates presents, I will
Socrates was a true believer that true pleasure only comes when individuals live a moral life. He believed that an individual’s inner life, or the soul, is the most important part of life. Each person must keep his or her soul healthy, by seeking truth, self-knowledge, justice, and goodness. Socrates believed that any soul in search of fame, wealth, and power becomes ignorant, sickly, and weak (Claudia, 270). He was concerned with strengthening his inner self by examining and criticizing it. He was not concerned with finding what people would seek since this could only lead to a weak, sick, and ignorant soul. Therefore, Socrates remained committed to his guns and never told the court what it wanted to hear.
The argument of whether or not a human has a soul has been argued throughout centuries. Derek Parfit discusses two separate theories of personal identity, Ego Theory and Bundle Theory. The argument of which present a more accurate account of personhood is very hard to determine. The Ego Theory has some flaws such the soul is separate from the body and is a immaterialist object within us. Bundle Theory is reinforced and proven by the split-brain case, however it can lead to the argument that there is no self. Bundle Theory is the theory that the self is an illusionary concept, everything that exists is a bundle of perception. Ego Theory is that there is a soul. The Ego Theory has some flaws such the soul is separate from the body and is a immaterialist object within us. Bundle Theory is reinforced and proven by the split-brain case, however it can lead to the argument that there is no self.
Within Book III, the question of how to choose their rulers is brought to the attention of both Socrates and our interlocutor – Glaucon. They discuss the best methods for this selection and what a good ruler should and should not be. This dialogue opens the discussion of finding a falsehood that can persuade even rulers and possibly create a better city, leading to the usage of the Myth of Metals – the Noble Lie.
Even on his last day of existence, Socrates did not surrender his exploration of the nature of the soul. Using the Socratic Method and the Recollection Argument, he cleverly proved that the soul exists before birth and that it is immortal. In this paper, I will explain Socrates’ line of reasoning by using the words of the philosophers engaged in the discussion recollected in Phaedo and a metaphor of my own. Secondly, I will point out some limitations in the Recollection Argument, such as its exclusive definition of all learning as recollection and the negative perception of the body. Finally, I will assess the strength of Socrates’ premises and the conclusion to reach an overall evaluation of the argument that established a strong foundation
Plato breaks the justification of knowledge down into two types of realms that show what can be known by reason and what can be known by the five senses. These realms, then divided into two other unequal parts based on their clarity and truthfulness, make up what is known as The Divided Line. By understanding The Divided Line we can fully grasp the differences between the perceptual, also known as becoming, realm and the conceptual, also known as being, realm.
Plato expresses his personal convictions and beliefs through the dialogues of his teacher, Socrates. Through the dialogue Phaedo, Plato presents four different arguments that he felt supported his idea of the soul being immortal, and that we will live on after the body no longer exists in the physical world. The four arguments that Plato lays out in the Phaedo are the argument of Opposites, Recollection, Affinity, and the final argument of The Forms. These arguments have been analyzed throughout the ages, receiving not only praise, but at times, criticism for seeming insufficient and weak. The strongest arguments for the immortality of the soul presented by Plato are the arguments of Affinity and The Forms. They both aim to show that the soul,
In Plato’s dialogue Phaedo, he explains the soul and comes to the conclusion that the soul is immortal. Through describing the last hours of Socrates life before his execution, he lays out three arguments in support of the idea that while the body may cease to exist the soul cannot perish. In this paper, I will explicate Socrates three arguments for the immortality of the soul and their objections. Then I will argue on the presupposition of the Law of Conservation of Mass, that the universe, entailing the soul, must be cyclical.
In thinking of Socrates we must recognize that what we have is four secondhand sources depicting him. That of Plato, Xenophanes, Aristophanes, and Aristotle. All having radically different accounts on Socrates and his views. Out of all them we consider Plato’s to be the most possible account, even though we face a problem of different versions of Socrates. The existence and continual study of Socrates’ philosophy regardless of differing accounts is astonishing in itself since it survived not through the specific philosopher, but through other people. Which is a testament of the impact that a man, such as Socrates, can make. When we think of Plato, who is regarded as a father of western philosophy, we are quick to think of his major work The Republic, his student Aristotle, and his writing on Socrates. (We think of his writings on Socrates as mere footnotes in philosophical thought without examining them.) “Nothing comes from nothing,” Parmenides proudly claimed, and this philosophical doctrine applies to Plato’s thought.
In Book IV of Plato’s The Republic, Socrates draws a comparison between the classes evident in their fictional city to the human soul. Socrates clearly defines the three forms he finds in the city as being the appetites of mankind, or in other words, all human desires, such as pleasure, comforts, and physical satisfaction. The second form discussed by Socrates is the spirit or the component of the soul which deals with anger and perceptions of injustice. The third and final form is the mind or reason, which analyzes and rationally weighs options and solutions to problems. Socrates compares these three forms of the soul to the three classes in the city: producers, auxiliaries, and guardians. Socrates concludes that in a perfectly just society, each class would have a fixed and equal place in the city in which they only carry out their specific purpose.
The self can be defined as ‘an organised, consistent set of perceptions of and beliefs about oneself’ (Passer, Smith, Holt, Bremner, Sutherland & Vliek, 2009, p676). We should aim to understand ourselves, learn know how we function
At the end of everyone’s lives, the goal appears to be about attaining happiness. Describing how to obtain happiness has been an issue that was debated in the past but is still talked about now . In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle expands on his view of happiness and he focuses particularly on how reason helps recognize and pursue what will lead to happiness and the good life. I feel that Aristotle’s philosophies on happiness are important works within the field of philosophy and he considered one of the………of it . In this paper, I will explore Aristotle’s beliefs regarding happiness then compare and contrast them to those of Martin Seligman.