Analysis Of Socrates Recollection Argument

Another question that is left unanswered is where or how the souls obtained the knowledge if inquiry is not a factor. We also do not have proof that the souls actually exist- and we are basing that off of the assumption that Socrates’ is correct. His response loops us back around to the initial issue, and in term it may even create it’s own paradox. He believes that the soul is immortal, and has lived many lives and learned things and has true beliefs, but does not answer the question of how we know if those beliefs are absolutely true or not.

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.

Anish Yonjan Philosophy 1301-73426 Prof. Marcos Arandia Feb. 19, 2017 Explain and evaluate Socrates' claim in the Apology that "the unexamined life is not worth living for a human being," and briefly analyze and discuss the particular method he uses to discover the truth (i.e., dialectics or the Socratic Method), using at least two examples from Plato's Euthyphro and/or Apology. Do you agree that a human being cannot live a fully satisfying life if he or she remains ignorant, like the slavish prisoners in Plato's cave? Why or why not? In the Plato’s Apology, Socrates claims that the “unexamined life is not worth living for a human being”.

The trial and death of Socrates is a book with four dialogues all about the trail that leads to the eventual death of Socrates. The four dialogues are Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, and Phaedo. It will explain the reasoning that brought Socrates to trial in the first place and give us a glimpse into the physiological thought of this time, and in this paper will describe some of the differences today.

“…if I disobeyed the oracle because I was afraid of death: then I should be fancying that I was wise when I was not wise. For this fear of death is indeed the pretence of wisdom, and not real wisdom, being the appearance of the unknown: since no one knows whether death, which they in their fear apprehend to be the greatest evil, may not be the greatest good” (Apology, 29a-29b). This potent statement not only highlights Socrates’ wisdom, it effectively makes use of his belief that he is wise because he knows nothing. By saying that he knows nothing of the afterlife, it gives him the reason to illustrate to his audience that he cannot fear what he does not know.

At the end of Book I of Plato’s Republic, Socrates attempts to persuade Thrasymachus that the just lead a happier and more flourishing life than the unjust (354a). He argues that justice is the virtue of the soul, which allows the soul to perform its ergon, or function, with excellence. Because the soul’s function is to live, justice allows the soul to live with excellence. In this paper, I shall present and critically examine Socrates’ reasoning behind this conclusion. The argument subtly commits the fallacy of equivocation because the term function is ambiguous. I will explain my reasoning later in the paper. The argument incorrectly assumes that if the performance of the function is good, in other words the person is successful in living,

The version of Socrates presented in both The Apology, Crito, and The Republic could very well be two different versions of Socrates as presented by Plato. However, both versions of Socrates have one thing in common: they both value the importance of philosophy and they both defend philosophy as something that is important to humanity.

Socrates in the dialogue Alcibiades written by Plato provides an argument as to why the self is the soul rather than the body. In this dialogue Alcibiades and Socrates get into a discussion on how to cultivate the self which they both mutually agree is the soul, and how to make the soul better by properly taking care of it. One way Socrates describes the relationship between the soul and the body is by analogy of user and instrument, the former being the entity which has the power to affect the latter. In this paper I will explain Socrates’ arguments on why the self is the soul and I will comment on what it means to cultivate it.

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 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.”

Part A- Socrates 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.

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.

In the first case, he uses the opposites as a way to show the absolute differences between two things. Socrates shows us that the opposite state of being larger is being smaller and the opposite state of being ugly is being beautiful. The opposite state for being faster is being slower and the opposite state of being weaker is being stronger. Socrates suggests that the adjectives that have an opposite need to have one adjective that occurs before the other. So, for an adjective such as beautiful, it must follow that one must have been ugly before becoming beautiful.

Socrates begins to explain how the people all stem from the same “mother”, but they all have a different characteristic within. They have different souls. This portion starts with this: “‘All of you in the city are brothers…but the god who made you mixed some gold into those who are adequately equipped to rule because they are most valuable. He put silver in those who are auxiliaries and iron and bronze in the farmers and other craftsmen… So the first and most important command from the god to the rulers is that there is nothing that they must guard better or watch more carefully than the mixture of metals in the souls of the next generation’”

Moreover, the dialogue is filled with pointed observations and fascinating speculations about human psychology. Some of them pull us up short, as, for example, the Freudian recognition of Oedipal desires that come out only in dreams (571c–d). The full theory is complex, and there remain numerous questions about many of its details. Fortunately, these questions do not have to be settled here for us to entertain Socrates’ response to Glaucon and Adeimantus’ challenge.