I will explain both philosopher’s methods when it comes to viewing the everyday world, talk about their similarities and differences, and then choose Descartes’s method regarding Rationalism. I agree with Descartes method a lot more than Plato’s because I feel that inborn knowledge is a form of deception and escaping your reality, like Plato would suggest, would only leave you to be deceived even more. Both Plato and Descartes believe in Rationalism, and they also fear uncertainty. These two philosophers want to answer the same basic question, “What is the difference between opinion and certainty” (Palmer 39). Plato believes that all
The two philosophers believed strongly in the concept of eudaimonia, which is basic human well-being and goodness (Mastin, 2008). Much of Socrates’ ethics was built around this concept, which led to his ethical code becoming basically objective. Socrates’ ethics were based on something of a knowledge/ignorance dichotomy. He believed that people act immorally but they do not act this way intentionally. Like all animals, Socrates believed that we act in and seek out what is in our best interests.
What if every known thing in the world turned out to be misguided? What if people within the world learned ways of life and adapted to environments only to find out that it was all a lie? In "The Allegory of the Cave" from Plato's "The Republic", the same questions were considered and analyzed by Socrates, the speaker of the story. The Philosopher Socrates explicates his allegory of great curiosity to Glaucon, a man of whom Socrates shares his wealth of wisdom with. Socrates' purpose in expressing the allegory is to show how the human race may not always see the truth but rather convince themselves that what they see is the truth. In other words, people allow themselves to believe what they would like to believe. As Socrates speaks, he has a questioning, curious and wise tone towards Glaucon, he speaks as if he does not even know the truth himself.
Finally, Socrates claims that the unjust man is ignorant, weak and bad. Socrates argument is effective in the way that he does not shatter Thrasymachus’ argument without reason, he is given many examples that change his way of thinking. Thrasymachus is told to put his ‘set in stone’ ideas under different situations, and once he does, he can clearly see that he should not have been so stubborn, as soon as he does so, he can see that his arguments aren’t suited to all situations. By the end of the argument, Thrasymachus isn’t so much debating the definition of justice, as he is defining the required traits to be a ruler of
So everything that we do, every action and decision that we make is in the assumption that there is something “good” to come of it because that is what we are all working and living for. The purpose and the function of our lives is more that just survival in a physical sense but of having a rational soul which means using our reason excellently. The only way for us to achieve true happiness is for us to develop our
In The Republic, Socrates has some interesting views on the idea of what it means to be just and what a perfect and just society would look like. To me, some of his ideas made sense, while others seemed ridiculous. Despite some of Socrates’s faulty ideas, the way he uses reasoning and examples to justify his thoughts is noteworthy. Socrates seems to place wisdom, justice, and goodness above all other virtues, and he repeatedly comes back to these themes when he describes the perfect state and people who should live in it. First of all, I appreciated the way Plato wrote down Socrates’s words and thoughts.
According to Socrates, the difference between a “true” lie and a lie in words is that a lie in words is apparent while a true lie is real. When a true lie is concerned, a person’s whole character is oriented to a world that doesn’t exist. The character’s soul can be changed for evil. Meanwhile, a lie in words is the noble lie.
Symbolism is how an author is able to illustrate a certain concept by attaching meaning to an entity. In the case of “Allegory of the Cave”, Plato uses the shadows cast by the flames as a symbol and the light of the sun as another symbol (201). Plato presents the issue of whether or not the prisoners (if exposed to the actual objects that cast the shadow) believe that the shadows portray a greater sense of truth (202). Glaucon then makes the statement, “Far truer” (202). Glaucon’s reply to Plato’s question (Socrates in the context of the story) justifies that the shadows of darkness blind one from the greater truth.
Socrates in his dialogue was pushing further with the idea that it is worse to do injustice than to suffer injustice, a clime which was objected by Polus. For Polus says that many people who do injustice are happy, but Socrates insists otherwise. Socrates focuses on Eudaimonia, which means happiness, as the main objective to reach. Thus the people who do injustice like kings and tyrants are unhappy. Socrates then asks Polus which is more shameful doing injustice or suffering it, and Polus replies that doing injustice is more shameful.
Overall, I can conclude that these two philosophers have a different perspective about life and ethics. Consequently, It is true that Plato make normative claims. However, his philosophy was not conclusive since continuously changes were made. It is also true that
The Pre-Socratics used rational thought to explain their world; if nature causes it, nature can cure it. They tried to explain natural occurrences without the use of religion. The Sophists suspected that Absolute Truths and Ideals are relative to the individual; they are not set by a higher power, but we decide them ourselves with our own human ideas and experiences. This idea seems to put a lot of power in our hands. Socrates, the father of philosophy, used the Socratic Method to teach; he asked questions, allowing students to use their own prior knowledge to form answers, looking within to find the truth.
Additionally, I do not want to place any unfair pressure on you to live up to a certain expectation. My expectation of you is to live a moral life full of virtue rather than someone deciding for you who you are supposed to be. It is a challenge I pass onto you to live each day understanding that the world is as you see it, not how anyone else tells you to (Lewis, 1944). You are capable of being a great leader by living a virtuous, wholesome life as you see it from your perspective. It may be challenging to wrap your head around the things discussed throughout this letter, but I share it because I know you are capable to harnessing the vision that Aristotle has shared, an idea removed at the time of the Enlightenment.
I am saying that “human beings are more than merely physical beings.” In Plato’s dialogues Phaedo and Meno “Theory of Recollection”, I began to understand that the soul carries innate knowledge. In Meno, the way that Socrates is able to prove this is by showing how a slave boy seems to have the ability to understand basic geometric principles. Socrates then concludes that the slave boy’s soul possessed the knowledge of geometry the whole time. From this, you could say that Plato hold’s deductive reasoning within ourselves that we have no business knowing, and that they must have been carried from a previous existence. Plato’s theology involves some kind of reincarnation.
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.