Eisele in his article ‘Must Virtue Be Taught?’ he states that indeed it can because even though the main theory is that virtue is knowledge and that it may be taught, there is no one to fully comprehend and define what virtue is and share the understanding of it with others. Eisle presents an insightful new theory that Socrates knows what virtue is and how to teach it because he is the best example of it. With virtue being equivalent to excellence, Eisle argues that Socrates ‘performs excellence in his incessant questioning and questing’ (Eisle, 1987:
The series of questions Socrates asks appear to be very simple, “is it thanks to justice that people are just?” Of course it is in Hippias’ mind, anything that is just must be so as a result of justice. The same questions are asked for wise people being so thanks to wisdom and good things good thanks to goodness. The conversation takes a turn for deeper philosophical thought when Socrates uses Hippias’ words against him – “That is, thanks to actual entities. It couldn’t be thanks to non-entities.”
And yet again, Socrates is able to react to this quote by causing Euthyphro to question his statement by replying, “And to give correctly is to give them what they need from [e] us, for it would not be skillful to bring gifts to anyone that are in no way needed.” (p.19). Through this reiteration of Euthyphro’s statement regarding gifting the gods, Socrates is able subtly hinting that a true, “good” entity should not require to be gifted from a being of a lower status and instead should help others as it is in their “good” nature. For God wants to help humans for the sake of working
I believe that Socrates is innocent because he defends himself truthfully with effect. He uses sound arguments and he is passionate about philosophy. Socrates did nothing to gain in life and did not want a high social standing. Socrates is fair and uses correct methods of arguments by uncovering the
Compare and contrast Socrates' attitude about philosophy (Apology and Allegory of the Cave Readings) with the Good Brahmin's (Voltaire) attitude Introduction: Philosopher Socrates and Voltaire are forces whose attitudes about philosophy bear little resemblance in one aspect but differ in several aspects. Although Socrates had a distinct view of things pertaining to knowledge as well as Voltaire, comparing and contrasting the attitudes of these philosophers provide a unique opportunity to capture their sense of perception and belief. In this piece of writing, it is essential to meticulously explore, with absolute enthusiasm, the perception and belief of Socrates regarding the reality and importance of knowledge; how his attitude is compared to that of Voltaire and his perception of life in general. In order to capture these attitudes, we conceptualize Socrates’ Apology and
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”. He said his definition and was sure that it was right.
Socrates does not make sound arguments because although his premises are logical, they sometimes have nothing to do with the original argument. In Plato’s Euthyphro, the Euthyphro dilemma argument states whether the Gods love the pious because it is pious or it is pious because the Gods love it. In order to support this distinction, Socrates’ first premise in supporting this conclusion is the example of being carried. Socrates claims that there is a difference between something that is already in the state of being carried because it is carried or if something is carried because it is in the state of being carried.
In Niccolo Machiavelli’s “The Morals of the Prince” and Plato’s “The Allegory of the Cave,” human nature is presented in different ways addressing the concepts of seeming and being. While Plato stresses the importance of being rather than seeming, Machiavelli reveals human nature is more successful when seeming rather than being. In Plato’s “The Allegory of the Cave,” Socrates emphasizes that the only way to separate what seems like reality and what actually is reality is to experience it in its purest form. Knowledge gained from the senses is nothing more than opinion, and to obtain real knowledge we must use philosophical reasoning.
The True Price of Happiness: An Analysis on Plato’s Tripartite Nature of the Soul As one of Plato’s most famous concepts, the tripartite nature of the soul recognizes the three different functions which corresponds to a specific power of the human soul. These three functions are as follows: awareness of the goal (reason), drive towards an action (spirit), and desire for bodily things (appetite). The reason holds supremacy or power over both spirit, and desire – where its main relationship between the latter two functions is dictated by the purpose of reason, which is to seek and attain a specific goal. However, the goal being pertained here is more than just the desire to attain fantastical and short-termed things set to trick us into believing
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.
Plato Plato makes many arguments in the Meno and the Phaedo. Some of his arguments are for the preexistence of a soul and that knowledge is gained as a result from recollection. Using the Cyclical argument, he says essentially that everything comes from their opposite state so the soul of a living must be a soul from someone who has died. The second argument is for Recollection and it claims that since we are able to see a lack of a given “thing”, then we must have a prior knowledge of what that “thing” should be. Closing with the Affinity Argument, it is reasoned that since there are two worlds; the changing world of our perception and the static world of the Forms; and the soul is more like that latter, than the soul must return to the world of Forms upon death.
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.
All the texts in this semester so far, dealt with philosophers who mostly described virtue as a form of knowledge that a man should gain through self-examination and that virtue will enable him to lead a good life. These philosophers mostly ended up defining what this good life would be like. These philosophers have a general authoritative tone. They are addressing students and colleagues and so a little knowledge of the subject matter is assumed by them. While Aristotle had a flow that was properly sequenced according to the progression of argument and propagation of ideas, Confucius and Lao Tzu had texts that were compiled by their followers and so those texts did not seem to have a distinct chain of events.
The Ancient-modern debate involves two main tenets and philosophers Boethius and Niccolo Machiavelli and both have extremely different and even contradictory views of politics and whether morality comes into play and how. Boethius covers the classical side of the debate where he gets some of his ideas from other philosophers in the classical rea like Plato and Socrates. Niccolo Machiavelli covers the modern aspect of the debate. Both speak on similar themes like the conception of happiness, the role of “Lady Fortuna” or Fortune and politics. The ancient or classical view of in the Ancient modern debate of human nature is that humans are naturally good and naturally political.
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.