Reasoning is all the positive and opposing arguments that support or critique the thesis by using logic. Socrates was accused and charged with being a corruptor of the youth and denying the gods of the city but introducing other divinities. Socrates defends his case by using reasoning and logic. Socrates said that if every Athenian improved the youth while only he corrupts them, then is influence should not have a greater effect than all the Athenians. Socrates didn’t corrupt the youth.
Thrasymachus continues to claim his position but in a modified form of his first argument, after Socrates commented. Being unjust, Thrasymachus thinks, is better than being just because it 's stronger and leads to a more happy life. As before he, he only takes into consideration only the advantages or disadvantages of being just, and he doesn 't discuss what 's justice or how it plays a role in people. Essentially, this definition is an extreme extension of the previous one. The example he gives that a tyrant gets happy through being unjust and controlling draws us back to his first argument saying that ‘ruling being the advantage of the stronger '.
In order for justice to full thrive kings would have to become philosophers and philosophers would have to become kings. Plato believes justice can be something external which reflects on a principle of good. He also believed that the ruling is a craft (Barney, 2004). However, Thrasymachus recognized it as nothing more than the advantage of the stronger. This simply means that anyone who is weak will not be carried on further.
There names are Rene Descartes and Plato. Plato and Descartes are two Greek philosophers that believe in Rationalism, yet both have a different perspective of it. 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.
According to the teachings of Socrates, “one must never intentionally inflict wrong on another, even when one has been wronged oneself.” In stating this, Socrates is validating the belief that “two wrongs don’t make a right.” In essence, Socrates believed that one cannot cure one evil by committing another, because in doing so the person is just hurting themselves. According to Crito however, it is acceptable to willingly do wrong depending on the circumstances. Crito explains that justice can only be truly served if one returned evil for evil as many believed, he uses Socrates situation to support his claims. Crito clarifies that the city of Athens wronged Socrates first, therefore, Socrates has the right to escape form the prison and break the law. Based on Crito’s claims it is understood
In Plato's Gorgias, it is apparent that Socrates has no desire to be a good statesman as it is defined in the eyes of the Athenians. His calculation is that Athenian rhetoricians place no reliance on facts or truth, nor are these their aim. Instead, they rely on the illusion of knowledge, and this morally weakens both themselves and their audiences. It is clear however, that if he wishes, Socrates is able to match most or all of the other statesmen in Athens, as is clearly indicated by his very eloquent speech which ends the dialogue. Additionally, under his own definition of a good statesman, it is evident that Socrates is more than qualified.
According to Chambers (2009) his belief was that the strongest objection to rhetoric is not that appeals to passion over reason, but that it is nomological rather than dialogical (p.324). To further simplify, Plato was not opposed to people expressing themselves passionately but opposed one to illustrate the deliberation process through passion as a form of misguiding or redirected
Plato’s The Republic 1)Why, and how successfully, does Thrasymachus contend that rulers cannot make mistakes? In a dispute with Socrates, Thrasymachus states that the ruler is incapable of making mistakes. He insists that if the man is a master of their craft, if this does really know what they are doing, they will not do anything wrong. According to philosopher, the reasons why one makes mistakes is that they lack certain knowledge or experience. That is why they are not skillful enough to perform duties properly.
The eyes of many, Socrates argued, were of no importance because one should shadow the wise, and pay little importance to public opinion. Socrates states “if the many could do the greatest evil; for then they would also be able to do the greatest good--and what a fine thing this would be! But in reality they can do neither; for they cannot make a man either wise or foolish; and whatever they do is the result of chance” (Plato). I believe that this statement forces Crito to look at the bigger picture. To realize what is just and unjust to get a bigger picture of who we might gather opinions from.
No, I came; I silenced her, I the ignorant Oedipus” (239-244). Oedipus tells him that the murderer could not be him, because it was him that helped Thebes when they most needed him. It was his knowledge that helped them and no god helped. It makes Oedipus look arrogant and once again believes that his knowledge saved Thebes and no one