The world we live in is filled with crime, evil, and injustice, but do people have the desire to do bad things knowing that they are bad, or do they do them thinking that they are good? In this essay, I examine Socrates argument, found in Plato’s Meno, that no one knowingly desires bad things. If Socrates were right, it would mean that it is impossible for someone to perform a bad action based on their desire for that bad thing. Instead, all bad desires result from the ignorance of the person performing the action in falsely believing that the action is good. Though Socrates presents a compelling argument, I argue that it is possible for someone to act badly, all the while knowing that what they desire is bad.
Perception is the organisation, identification and interpretation of sensory information in order to represent and understand the environment. Like perception, logic plays a role in critical thinking. Critical thinking is the process in which one mentally explores deeper than the superficial matters at hand into the deeper layers in order to find out what the real issues are. However, when it comes to weighing their beneficial impact on the critical thinking process, logic and perception are by no means equal. While logic is firmly rooted in reason, perceptions are just as firmly rooted in one’s senses and can easily be corrupted.
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.
The just person’s soul entails motive for certain kinds of objects the most important of which is knowledge. Socrates describes the hardship and extreme effort required to gain knowledge of the forms and the form of the good, thus the just person will seek learning and not spend time to take care of the satisfaction of desires that typically lead to unjust actions. This approach to unite the gap between a just soul and just actions may have some drawbacks. One negative aspect may be that several unjust actions may be motivated by desires that are compatible with the desire for knowledge. For example, why wouldn’t a person with a great fascination for knowledge steal a book if it would contribute to their
In spite of this claim, Socrates was truly only showing the court that he really did not know much more than his name. He was proving this because throughout his speech, he made it seem like the idea of knowing the truth and having real knowledge about a subject wasn’t needed in order to achieve the goal of persuasion. In Socrates’ speech he stated, “...if I say that the unexamined life is not worth living, you’ll believe me even less...you think I’ve been convicted for lack of arguments that would have persuaded you…” Socrates never specified or went into details about his beliefs that he was presenting to the court which, revealed to them that he did not know anything. He wasn’t able to strengthen his claims by providing evidence meaning his use of logos was faulty. However, Socrates’ goal was not to gather evidence to make it seem as if he was putting all his efforts in saving his life.
There are many flaws in logic. According to Gilovick one flaw in logic is, not looking at the counter factual. What would have happened if the opposite condition held? Are the “facts” being supplied only showing one side, providing biased results? Gilovick uses the example of conception after adoption to explain.
In the text, The Ethical Life, by Russ Shafer-Landau, it questions Jonathan Bennett’s morality and sympathy and how the two of them can come into conflict. Morality and sympathy are connected, but still very different. Throughout this chapter, Jonathan Bennett outlines many important points and factors that go into these connections and how they can overlap and conflict. Jonathan Bennett says morality can be “bad1.” This type of morality is one that Bennett strongly disagrees with, no so much that one’s morality is actually proven to be bad or even untrue. Sympathy is different than morality in a myriad of ways.
During his illustration of his principle, his definition of morality seems to be unstable and ambiguity increases with phrases like “moral difference”, “moral significance”, “moral autonomy”. It is likely that when it comes to significant difference between his principle and traditional values, he tends to use morality to confuse readers and make his statements more mysterious, more highly standardized and in a way, more likely to be trustable because we tend to believe in what we do not fully understand even confusingly. Another ambiguity arises from the exact phrase in the main contention, “same moral significance”, Singer explain it as “not to promote what is good”, it raises another problem that what the distinction between good and bad is and it always remains a debatable
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
I. Descartes – Evil Genius Problem A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF DESCARTES’ THEORY The Doubts about the Evil Genius Doubt 1. Does the evil genius exist? Although it may seem trivial to question the hypothetical being, Descartes’ arguments are also phrased cunningly to avoid questions. While Descartes is clearly considering even the most remote possibilities in his method of doubt, all he offers is the claim that such a being could exist. However, this is not seen as a solid basis upon which absolute doubt, required by Descartes, can be built.