As we will see in this essay, the discussion of Book 1 reflects the idea that every definition given by each character involved in the discussion reflects his personality. A character analysis, in addition to the interaction of Socrates are discussed in this essay. What is justice? Why should we be just? These two questions were the main idea of the discussion between Socrates and his friends: Glaucon, Adeimantus, Polemarchus, Cephalus… Socrates asks the question of the definition of justice, each one of the interlocutors answers the question in his own way that, according to Socrates, reflects his own personality.
In the Protagoras, this question about virtue takes the form of a lengthy attempt by Socrates to prove that what are commonly thought of as separate virtues—courage, temperance, holiness, justice and wisdom—are in fact simply different names for the same thing (Plat. Prot. 329c). Virtue is a single thing, namely teachable wisdom concerning pleasure and pain or good and bad. The good life is marked by
The philosophical life/life of study –intellectual contemplation which responds to our rational side. It means to naturally have the interest and curiosity because for Aristotle the education is the cultivation of the character. 10. How does Aristotle define moral virtue in Nicomachean Ethics II, 1107a1-3? Explain the various parts of this definition.
His most important writings called Dialogues touched upon almost every problem that had occupied philosophers in his time and even now in this present time. These dialogues are written using a dialectical method, which is a method of thinking used by Socrates to come up with a definition, which is a clear and fixed idea. In other words the 'Truth ' 'He used these dialogues to convey and expand on the ideas and techniques of his teacher Socrates. ' In answering the above question though, We need to look at the branch of Philosophy that deals with Knowing, and that is epistemology. Then using Plato 's Dialogues, the Republic, especially book seven which is the Allegory of the Cave, the Theaetetus and the divided line ,I will attempt to explain Plato 's Theory of knowledge.
In Book 1 of Plato 's Republic, Socrates and Thrasymachus engage in a passionate, and often acrimonious, conversation regarding the relationship between a ruler and those he or she rules. Their conversation raises substantive questions about both the nature and purpose of government and the motivations and roles of those who govern. The following will address these questions by 1) explaining both Socrates ' and Thrasymachus ' understandings of the ruler-ruled relationship and 2) addressing the merits of each argument and offering my own philosophical position on the matter. First, with respect to Thrasymachus ' position, he believes that rulers craft laws for their "own advantage," and he considers justice to be the "advantage of the stronger"
This paper is written about Plato’s Apology. Plato was one of the most influential Greek philosophers in the 5th Century BC. The Apology is based on Plato’s version of Socrates speech of defence in 399 BC. The first aim of this paper is to give some insight as to what the apology is about. The second aim is to outline all the things Socrates says in his defence which to me were important in outlining the reasoning for his trial and which he uses in his defence.
Plato was an Athenian philosopher, who founded the first academic institution in the western world, the academy and is well-known for paving the path for philosophy in western traditions. He was a student of Socrates’ and often used Socrates in the discussions of his dialogues, the myth of the cave being one of them. Plato was a believer of idealism. He believed that immaterial qualities are more real than empirical objects, which we can feel, see, and touch. In the myth of the cave, Plato paints us a picture of how we can be easily fooled by our senses, and of our original perceptions of the world.
What is justice? This is the crucial question that Plato attempts to answer in his dialogue, The Republic. He conjures up an allegory that justice can be found in a person, and a person can represent a city. Thus, his entire dialogue focuses on this ‘just’ city and the mechanics of how the city would operate. His dialogue covers a myriad of topics about justice in addition to the human soul, politics, goodness and truth.
The focus of this essay will be which of the speeches within the Symposium offers the most convincing account of Erôs, with focus on the speeches of Eryximachus and Socrates and how their different conceptions of Love lead to their speeches being variably convincing. We will focus specifically on how Eryximachus’ idea of Erôs as the Good itself versus Socrates idea of Erôs as only the seeker of the Good effect their arguments integrity. We will also explore how both of these speeches are similar in their understanding of Erôs in terms of a balancing force although Eryximachus focuses on the nature of Love whereas Socrates turns to the effects of Erôs (Naugle, 2010, pp. 7-9). To arrive at the conclusion that while one personally prefer the account of Erôs given by Eryximachus, Socrates speech is more convincing due to the issues raised by equating Erôs to the Good.
In Niccolo Machiavelli’s “The Morals of the Prince” and Plato’s “The Allegory of the Cave,” human nature is presented in different ways addressing the concepts of seeming and being. While Plato stresses the importance of being rather than seeming, Machiavelli reveals human nature is more successful when seeming rather than being. In Plato’s “The Allegory of the Cave,” Socrates emphasizes that the only way to separate what seems like reality and what actually is reality is to experience it in its purest form. Knowledge gained from the senses is nothing more than opinion, and to obtain real knowledge we must use philosophical reasoning. Knowledge already exists inside a soul, but it is crucial that this knowledge be pointed toward the good in order to benefit future rulers.
In the book “The Crito,” by: Plato there is a dialogue that stands out to me and it is when Socrates says “Look now, Socrates, perhaps the laws would say, if what we say is true, what you are now attempting to do to us is not just. For we gave you birth, nurtured, educated you, giving share of everything which is beautiful to you and all the other citizens...” He emphasizes the laws by using personification. However, what I find interesting is that when he does this he goes in the more broader aspect not just by external meaning of what a person would see in which we see of people interpreting (e.g. Supreme Court Justices, state judges, and lawyers) but that he let law represent its own meaning. The second thing that stood out to me was the