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. One of the important definitions given was that given by Thrasymachus: he defines justice as the advantage of the stronger. “Now listen, I say that the just is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger. Well why don’t you praise me? But you won’t be willing”.
Socrates, whose life consists of asking thought provoking questions, asks Euthyphro to simply describe, in his own personal opinion, what piety is. Euthyphro responses multiple times with albeit different responses, each one still relates to the Homeric gods and their humane desires and needs. One of Euthyphro’s many responses that showcases his personal idea of piety and its relationship to the gods of which had also greatly troubled
Isocrates and Aristotle both believed in the influence of sound rhetoric; furthermore, they insist upon a strategic education to further what they consider to be true rhetoric. The usefulness of rhetoric was undisputed. Sophists believed that educated men could convince the world of anything, and Aristotle and Isocrates knew that persuasion was applicable to every subject. The difference between men like Isocrates and Aristotle and the sophists was the search for truth. As a result of their philosophy behind rhetoric, they taught rhetoric differently.
Voltaire had some of the same ideas compared with Socrates. Like Socrates, he believed that knowledge and reason should be held above all things, even happiness. He believed that it was better to be unhappy and knowledgeable than happy and ignorant, but even though he held this belief, he didn 't understand why this was so. Even after discussing this idea with other philosophers, who agreed with him that knowledge should be held higher than happiness, they could not come to a conclusion of
How do their approaches to their subjects, their style of expression, and their claims differ from each other? In what ways are they similar? A: In Meno Plato was attempting to convey the idea of true virtue, and did it in a style of long form verbal examples, in the excerpt we read he walks a young student though the fallacies of logic, proving Plato’s point about truly understanding something (Or lack of understanding). Whereas Aristophanes is writing for an audience that should be taken as a commentary and critics of Socrates, but as more humorous than anything. 3. Who are the intended
Noble lie, a concept introduced by Plato, is a fiction or untruth about a religious nature which mainly focuses on a lie told by upper class to protect or do what is best for society. This essay will discuss the concept of the noble lie from Plato/Socrates book the republic and how it is conducted merely in our everyday modern life by discussing Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky scandal and the biggest political scandal, Richard Nixon’s Watergate scandal. This essay will argue that Bill Clinton’s lie about his sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky was not noble but rather to his own personal interests and will also argue that the Watergate political scandal was a series of all illegal activities performed by Nixon’s administration. The essay will be divided into 3 sections. First section will explain how Plato and Socrates view the noble lie and how it is related to the case studies mentioned above.
Life is reduced to recollecting what we already know and nothing else, making our lives simply a nostalgic remembering. Why couldn’t some of our learning be gained with the body instead of through recollection? Why couldn’t we define beauty by simply comparing all the objects we have known in our lives and figure out what overall characteristics are more valuable or trigger our emotions? Socrates could answer this question since he implies that we cannot set our own standards as they would be based on our sense-perception. There is another possible loophole in Plato’s argument.
While Plato presents a broad argument that emphasizes the importance of pursuing truth over eloquent words and oration, W.E.B. DuBois presents an argument specifically to African Americans, urging them to value a higher education that is centered around seeking truth in the face of civil dispute. However, their arguments for valuing truth are similar because they both urge their readers to seek truth over wealth and to not simply follow the opinion of the majority, especially when considering matters that affect the soul. Plato’s argument for pursuing truth begins in the dialogue “Apology” in his famous work known as the Five Dialogues, a series of conversations portraying Plato’s mentor Socrates and his profound philosophical
Instead, Socrates chooses to question Crito’s request and comes to the conclusion that it is best for him to stay. After reading Plato’s Apology and Crito, I can conclude that according to Socrates human virtue is knowledge (wisdom). In this paper I will present two disputes that’s Socrates uses to prove what human virtue is. In Apology, one argument Socrates makes is that he is not wise. Socrates starts this off by explaining how Chaerephon went to the god Delphi, and Delphi asked if he knew any man that was wiser
I believe that Socrates was a man who looked beyond the physical world and strived to gain as much knowledge as he could through asking questions and continuing to learn from others and in turn teach others, thus making him wise and striving to live the best life. Socrates was confident, but not arrogant. He had reason to believe that he was truly the wisest, as he could not find one example to disprove the Delphi’s claim that “no one is wiser” than Socrates. (Apology 21a). Socrates wanted to assure that this claim was true before presenting this idea to others so that he did not come off as arrogant.