Argument Of Opposites In Plato's 'Phaedo'

This portrays how concealed they are about knowledge, they presume he who touches metal ought to be a priest, if not, consequently, you die. Moreover, John doesn’t comprehend how self-explanatory utensils work. In the story, this occurs, “... In the washing-place, a thing said ‘Hot’ but it was not hot to the touch—another thing said ‘Cold’ but it was not cold. This must have been a strong magic, but the magic was gone, I do not understand—they had ways—I wish that I knew...”.

Plato, p. 46 The argument then leads to the understanding that men with vice realize this painful aspect of justice and are blind to its good impact on the soul. They cannot therefore, be happy. In fact, states Socrates: "…a man who is not brought to justice is more wretched than one who is." Plato, p. 47

“…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.

SOCRATIC PARADOXES Many of Socrates ' beliefs have been characterized as paradoxical because they seem to conflict with common sense. The following are among the Socratic Paradoxes:  No body seeks evil  No body will commit wrongdoings with his own will  All virtue is knowledge  Virtue is sufficient for happiness The expression 'I know that I know nothing ', is a renowned phrase from Plato 's account of the Greek philosopher Socrates.

In Greek tragedy, inevitability plays an important role, portraying the protagonists as pawns of the fates, whose roles in the tragedy are distributed arbitrarily and without justice. The outcomes of these roles are decided before the play even begins, for example in Sophocles' Antigone, and thus any actions of the characters during the play are futile, as they cannot affect the outcome. In the worst tragedy of all, the characters must return again and again to play out the same roles, as the wheel turns. Of course, Shakespeare and the other Jacobean playwrights were not subject to the conventions of Greek tragedy, but nevertheless would have been aware of it and been influenced by it. Inevitability is important in Shakespeare's tragedies

Socrates’ speech within the Symposium falls short of being a truly convincing account of Erôs, mainly due to the fact that it does not deliver an explanation of what Erôs is but only where it comes from and its purpose in a spiritual sense, but is can still be considered successful in its own right. Socrates speech is less convincing due partly to the fact that it is not of his own creation, instead being a retelling of a conversation he had with Diotima. Socrates thus comes across as largely uninterested in sex and sexual desire, and instead puts forward an account of Erôs which revolves around Love as a collaborative striving for Goodness, similar to Eryximachus’ appeal to unity and wellness. Socrates speech comes from what he learned from Diotima of Mantinea, who was a priestess who believed that Love is a progressive force which moves one from considering merely the physical to the contemplation of pure and abstract beauty. Diotima explained that Erôs is neither God nor mortal, but a spiritual force which exists between

10% of defendants sentenced to death volunteer for execution, but what about the people to sentence to die in prison. The death penalty should be a voluntary choice for all inmates/ defendants sentenced to life imprisonment, since sentencing a person to life without parole is civil death, rehabilitation is not an option for them, and many inmates prefer death over life sentences. Morality is the biggest decision maker when deciding whether to take another person’s life and will depend on the person you ask. The dilemma created from the death penalty would be utilized to assist an “inmate’s last wish”. Giving sentenced defendants the option to die counter the thought of it being a murder and closer towards assisted suicide.

For instance, so that an object can become bigger, it must have been smaller beforehand, and has become bigger out of this smallness. Further, there are two forms of generation between opposites, where each opposite comes into being out of the other opposite. For instance, between big and small there are the twin processes of increase and decrease. He states; “the beautiful is the opposite of the ugly and the just of the unjust and a thousand of those other things of a kind” (70e) Plato uses this argument of opposites in order to clarify that everything must have an opposite, therefore, there must surely be an opposite to the simple act of living which is death and the opposite of death being living and that living creatures come to be from the dead so therefore there must be life in the underworld.

Socrates creates a thought-provoking claim around the idea that ‘beauty’ and ‘beautiful things’ are fundamentally different, however, Hippias displays a failure to appreciate this distinctiveness and continues to dispute that there is no difference in the matter. The basic question Socrates asks is ‘What is beauty?’, and Hippias addresses the essence, not by defining the feature, but by giving an example of it. Socrates repeatedly receives an example of a ‘beautiful thing’. The Socratic Quest for the definition of the essence is resulting without conclusion, not only in the discussion between Socrates and Hippias but in a number of Plato’s dialogues. Without a concluding answer, the audience is left questioning the metaphysical status that beauty

Melatus claimed that Socrates " did not believe in the gods in whom city believes but in other new divinities" and at the same time accused him for not believing in any Gods (26c-27a). There is a contradiction. Socrates cannot at the same time be an atheist and believe in other new divinities. Therefore, Socrates defended himself by asking a question "if anyone believes in human affairs but not in humans, in equine affairs but not in horses, in flute music but not in flute players " and then asked if any man believed in divine activities but not in divinities? ( 27b-d).

The forth crime that was charged was, disbelief ‘in the gods of the city.’ This charge is a result from the first charge of being ‘a natural philosopher.’ He indeed did not believe in any of the Olympian deities. He may have gotten out of this one if he praised any god and paid tribute to them, but he did not. Because he didn’t, he had committed treason.

In “Let them die” essay, Kenan Malik assert that endangered languages in the world should be left to dead. In other word, the minority languages should not be preserved, because it is not related to the achievement of “cultural diversity” (Malik, 3). Indeed, he expresses, dying languages should be removed in order to reach the “dynamic and responsive” (Malik, 6) culture. However, the claims that Malik uses in his essay does not tackle the counter argument correctly. In addition, the evidences in the essay is not clear.

One of the main objections to autonomy-based justifications of physician-assisted suicide (PAS) that Gill talks about is that many people believe it does not promote autonomy, but instead is actually taking it away (366). First, it is important to clarify what autonomy means. According to Gill, it is the ability of a person to make big decisions regarding their own life (369). Opponents of PAS argue that it takes away a person’s ability to make these big decisions and so it is intrinsically wrong for them to choose to take their own life.

There could very well be a hell with eternal suffering which would be rational for a person to fear. However, Socrates assumes that if a pleasant afterlife did not exist, the only other option would be an endless night’s sleep. However, the reason we find “dead sleep” to be wonderful is because we awake from it. If we never awake from this sleep, we would assume it is simply nothing. This brings Socrates to his assumption that “nothing” is good because no harm can be done to you when you are nothing.

Plato’s Apology is in the words of Socrates. The apology explains what Socrates though of death as he awaited his death after being condemned for not believing in God. He believed after death, one would either go to another world or be in a state of nothingness. He had the theory of death being a place where one would learn about life and talk to people that no longer walk the Earth. He supports his argument that death is a gain by explaining that he, Socrates, will get to speak to famous poets and past heroes.