Piety is the quality of being religious and reverent. It is used in a way to refer to win the favor or forgiveness of God. Piousness is an act of doing right things and being the righteous in the eyes of the God and according to Holy scripts, as it is mentioned in Holy Quran “… and whoever respects the signs of Allah, this is (the outcome) of the piety of hearts.” Piety is also a believe or point of view which is accepted with unthinking conventional reverence. The argument between Euthyphro and Socrates started when they met each other at king-archon’s court, where Socrates explained him that he is under indictment by one Meletus for corrupting young and not believing in gods in whom city believes. On the other hand, Euthyphro was there to prosecute
In Apology and Crito the readers get to learn about the last couple moments of Socrates before he is given the death sentence. In Plato’s Apology, Socrates is brought to trial and accused of many crimes. In his defense, Socrates uses his usual technique of questioning people’s actions and at the end of the trail he gets convicted for corrupting the youth and not believing in the gods. In Plato’s Crito, Socrates is requested by Crito to run away from jail, and ultimately avoid his death. Instead, Socrates chooses to question Crito’s request and comes to the conclusion that it is best for him to stay. After reading Plato’s Apology and Crito, I can conclude that according to Socrates human virtue is knowledge (wisdom). In this paper I will present two disputes that’s Socrates uses to prove what human virtue is.
Plato’s symposium wad seven speeches, but two that really made me think were from Phaedrus and Aristophanes. Phaedrus has mentioned that love is the oldest god. It is the highest good that tries to guide men. He tries to explain that love is so strong that is even exceeds honor and has the ability to please the gods. Many people have tried to fight for love and by fighting in the name of love the gods are honored. Phaedrus tries to explain that love is what makes people into a real hero. They are fighting for their beloved and will encourage people to get stronger for the people they care about. Love is an unstoppable force that people are even willing to sacrifice themselves for their love. He concludes
Socrates is trying to test the point that no individual aspires to do or want things that are bad for this. This is because he states that no individuals yearns to be miserable and unhappy. This, undeniably, is true. However, even though no individual wishes to be miserable and unhappy, people do wish to make other individuals miserable and unhappy. What Socrates fails to see is that countless amounts of individuals wish to do bad deeds and hurt others, however, they themselves do not want to be made unhappy throughout that process. Example of these types of people are terrorists. On the other hand, teenagers seeking to emotionally abuse a friend can be seen under this category. This is because even though they wish to hurt their friend, they mistakingly believe that the friendship will remain intact.
Plato’s dialogues Gorgias and Phaedrus both consider the idea of rhetoric. Rhetoric being the art or skill of getting something from the masses or individuals, and often used in getting away with a crime. The type of rhetoric being argued about in the Gorgias dialogue is public rhetoric, what exactly rhetoric is, whether it is an art or not, and how it is best used so as to promote the highest good. In the Phaedrus dialogue private rhetoric is being discussed over the issue of love. This paper will examine how eros is central to both the Gorgias and Phaedrus dialogues.
Socrates was a man that was in search of the truth about wisdom. However, it became more then just a search when it brought him to trail of accusations. As a philosopher Socrates was known to overdrawn ideas and to frustrate anyone he was talking to. He is always in search of a better idea and for anyone who has experienced Socrates could assume he is making up his own actualities. This becomes evident in “ Apology” written by Plato, where Socrates was brought in charges for corrupting the minds of the youth and not believing in the Gods.
Socrates was a greek philosopher who found himself in trouble with his fellow citizens and court for standing his grounds on his new found beliefs from his studies about philosophical virtue, justice, and truth. In “Apology” written by Plato, Socrates defended himself in trial, not with the goal of escaping the death sentence, but with the goal of doing the right thing and standing for his beliefs. With this mindset, Socrates had no intention of kissing up to the Athenians to save his life. Many will argue that Socrates’ speech was not very effective because he did not fight for his life, he just accepted the death sentence that he was punished with. In his speech he said, “But now it’s time to leave, time for me to die and for you to live.”
The significance with the first teaching and the unexamined life quote go hand in hand. By questioning and looking at things through the way he wants to live his life he is at harmony with himself. By examining people, places, or questions he is living a life to which brings him peace. Socrates didn’t have the riches or wasn’t high up on the totem pull in Athens. What he did have though was the happiness and knowledge he thought to be enough for a life worth
The short story “What We Talk about When We Talk about Love” by Raymond Carver is about four friends- Laura, Mel, Nick, and Terri, gathering on a table and having a conversation. As they start to drink, the subject abruptly comes to “love.” Then, the main topic of their conversation becomes to find the definition of love, in other word to define what exactly love means. However, at the end, they cannot find out the definition of love even though they talk on the subject for a day long. Raymond Carver in “What We Talk about When We Talk about Love” illustrates the difficulty of defining love by using symbols such as heart, gin, and the sunlight.
Philosophical thinking uses three acts of the mind: understanding, judgement, and reason. In order to have a sound argument all of the concepts must be applied. Socrates didn’t want to please the people by saying or doing what they wanted him to say or do. Socrates thought it was not important to seek wealth or fame; he was concerned with truth and virtue. He wanted to create an impact on humanity by relying on the truth and shining a light in people’s lives, even if they put him on trial. Socrates defended himself and showed the truth by standing up for what he believed in. By doing this, he was put to death. Socrates effectively used the three acts of the mind to rebut the charges made against him at trial.
In general, I do agree with your analysis, Socrates intentions were to leave a mark in society. In other words, to have individuals then and now take some time to “think” and seek greater knowledge. In my opinion, I can have concluded that his argument in trial serve not just as a plead to prove his innocence but as an invitation to follow his philosophy. Plato’s documentation of that event proves that Socrates did not die in vain that some was hearing his words and has cause conscience of themselves. Additionally, it can be seen that Socrates came to the wisdom of knowing himself and defending that knowledge to the
From both these readings one can conclude that both of these men had great intentions. In my humble opinion one can’t contrast the conclusions, as the conclusion in both these scenarios is justice, there’s no denying that. But the reader can contrast the way both MLK and Socrates used just obedience to arrive at the conclusion of justice. Socrates seems to be more of an individualistic character, as he had no one group behind him that he was fighting for. He uses his words and his honesty to achieve his justice, he takes every advantage of this one true opportunity he has before the council to voice his opinion. One could also argue that Socrates seemed to want the truth, not so much for others but for his own well being. As oppose to King,
“The Assayer” is a text written by Galileo Galilei in 1623. I intend to analyze a section from Galileo’s “The Assayer.” My analysis will cover the text’s five elements of the rhetorical triangle. The five elements of the rhetorical triangle include the speaker, occasion, audience, message, and purpose.
In the Symposium, Alcibiades asserts that Socrates is the only man who has made him feel shame. Alcibiades’ shame seems to indicate that he has reflected on his actions and has learned something from Socrates. However, I believe that he is not ascending towards the beautiful nor has he learn anything from Socrates as his desire takes precedent over love for Beauty. This essay will first analyze the role of shame as self-awareness in the Ladder of Love. Next, through two accounts recalled by Alcibiades in the Symposium, it will highlight the importance of shame in the Ladder of Love. Lastly, the essay will conclude with how shame does not indicate that Alcibiades is ascending towards the beautiful or has learned anything based on the aforementioned points.
My worldview journey is quite basic and uncomplicated. I’m a full-time college student with absolutely no contradictions or controversial questions swirling around in my mind. Since I’m an engineering major so like most of the unexceptional people I never used to scrutinize everything and raise different philosophical questions, in fact, the answer to almost anything for me was either science or the religious knowledge I attained and understood so far. Achieving my goals and be successful and keeping my family happy and satisfied was the only main objective in life. My religious faith is pretty comprehensible as well, I believe in one God and have firm faith in His existence. God has created everything for some reason and He is the only One