However, Socrates is not satisfied with such definition and responses to Euthyphro that many of conflicts exist among the gods and what is pleasant to one god might be unpleasant to another. Consequently, Euthyphro says that goodness is something pleasant to all gods. So at end of dialogue, Socrates have not agreed with Euthyphro and says “So I think you’ve just been playing games with me, Euthyphro. I asked you to tell me what holiness really is, and it seems you’ve sneakily refused to tell me” (Plato, 1984, p.49). Thereby, the dialogue leaves readers with unanswered question “Does goodness exist?” and if it exists what goodness is?
Since Meletus is not able to provide concrete evidence of what improves the young citizens, he says that Meletus is not concerned with the welfare of the youth and therefore concludes that Meletus is unmindful of the youth. Meletus has shown that he doesn’t understand corruption by claiming that everyone, but Socrates improves the young crowd. However, the statement is exactly contrary to the current scenario as only those
The indirect characterization of the Pardoner, in consideration of his objective stance towards his own wrongdoings, reveals him to be a man with conscious partial to his intents and basic motivation. The Pardoner explicitly states his reason for sermonizing as his “exclusive purpose is to win and not at all to castigate their sin” (p. 243). With brutal honesty and in meticulous fashion, the Pardoner embraces his love for profit and monetary gains in spite of his pious occupation. Though the actions and impressions of the Pardoner are both distasteful and lacking in morals, it is the same hypocritical disposition that highlights the depth and good of the character. While not righteous or honorable in any traditional sense, the Pardoner argues that he is appropriate to preach against his personal vice of greed due to his understanding of the sin and that in the process he is able to truly assist others in the relinquishment of their faults.
In Plato’s, Phaedo, one of the arguments that Socrates makes for justifying his theory about the soul being immortal is the argument of opposites. The argument of opposites is found from 70c to 72c in the Phaedo. The argument is not logically valid as there are a few fallacies that occur with the definition of opposites with which Socrates defines his argument. This argument ultimately fails at being logically valid as contrary to premise 1, all things that have an opposite do not come from only their opposites. Socrates also does not specify in this argument whether he is referring to the soul dying or the body dying in the final premises.
Dunn generalizes the male population in a way that may be degrading and fails to acknowledge key points due to its narrow angle of vision. The author reads too much into a very simple topic as men just use locker room talk as a mean of entertainment. Mr. Dunn has very little credibility as he doesn’t have any research, concrete scientific experiments, or data to support his conclusion and thesis. Stephen Dunn fails to engage the readers emotionally as he uses very emotionally unattached language and
Brutus is also great friends with Caesar himself; meaning, Caesar would never see Brutus betrayal coming. Both of these attributes are seen as very valuable to the conspiracy by Casca. In act one, scene three, Casca states," Oh, he sits high in all the people's heart's, And that which would appear offense in us, His countenance, like richest alchemy, Will change to virtue and to worthiness." Casca is implying Brutus could do things that would seem evil coming from him because of his popularity with the people. A wrong action by Brutus would be seen as acceptable, giving the conspiracy the ability to do what ever is necessary and not be hated by the people.
He says what we don't think about is that a lot of our decisions we have made in hopes of the pleasure we were looking for only caused us pain in the end. I agree with Epicurus’ teachings on desire and happiness. In today’s society people make decisions based on unnecessary desires in an attempt to find happiness. You could even go as far as to say that this is the root of society’s problems. Today, money equals happiness.
Antony has a pattern of after he defends Caesar for a while he would then say the quote of “Brutus says he was ambitious; And Brutus is an honorable man.” This is antistrophe because he most often places this statement at the end of his main points. Not only is this phrase used as an antistrophe, but it’s also incredibly ironic. Antony goes on about how kind and unambitious Caesar is, and then uses the phrase to stab at Brutus. He means the opposite of what he says; he is teasing the fact Brutus believed himself to be so honorable when what he did, in Antony’s opinion, was awful, and uncalled for. This phrase can also make more people emphasize with Caesar, because the believed Brutus to be honorable before he did this, and this may remind them of that.
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. Similarly, there is a difference between something being in the state of being loved because it is loved and something being loved
He says in his trial that neither he nor a man he spoke to "appears to know anything great and good" but that the other man acted as though he knew something, when in reality he did not. In response to this, Socrates' says he "does not know anything, so [he does] not fancy [he does]. "6 His realization that his wisdom comes from his own admittance to not knowing the answers is central to his goal of helping other young men realize that they and the people around them do not know all the answers as they claim to. Socrates' method of teaching and questioning would sometimes leave men feeling demeaned, reducing them to tears because they did not know the answers to the questions they were being asked.7 His teaching method is reasonably named the "Socratic Method," and