What things would people call good by themselves? Aristotle asks if things that are pursued even when alone and isolated, things like intelligence and pleasure, would be considered for this. He then says that, on the other hand, it could be nothing more than the idea of good itself, which would be considered empty. However, he then backtracks slightly, saying that if what the attributes he had said before had good in them, that the account of good would be similar between each of
In Plato’s, The Republic, Book I, Socrates tries to prove to Thrasymachus “whether just people also live better and are happier than unjust ones” (352d). He argues that everything has a predisposed proficiency at a function, and that this functions are performed well by the peculiar virtue and badly by means of its vice (353a-353d) . The point of this paper is to present Socrates argument and evaluate it to the best of my ability. This argument can be categorized as an inductive generalization. Socrates states that the function of anything is what it alone can do or what it does best.
Both Plato and Descartes believe in Rationalism, and they also fear uncertainty. These two philosophers want to answer the same basic question, “What is the difference between opinion and certainty” (Palmer 39). Plato believes that all
His argument relies more on human passion and how temptation plays a role in our decision making. Plato states that wanting something is not wrong; we are allowed to make choices that will not lead to any repercussions and still result in our own joy or pleasure. In his book, Republic II, Plato writes, “Tell me, do you think there is a kind of good we welcome, not because we desire what comes from it, but because we welcome it for its own sake—joy, for example, and all the harmless pleasures that have no results beyond the joy of having them?” (Republic II 357b). To this Plato agreed, saying that we are allowed to have pleasures that do not rely on the end result, but only because we find joy in the action. Relating this passage to the scenario given, Plato believes that eating a cheesesteak, even though we are vegetarian, is not a bad act because we are simply doing it for the joy of the act, not the results of said
Socrates says, “But surely, as I was saying just now, it would be most correct to say that it is truly speaking a lie-- the ignorance in the soul of the one to whom the lie was told. For a lie in words is a sort of imitation of this affection in the soul, an image of it that comes into being after it, and not an altogether pure lie” (382b7-11). In his explanation, Socrates believes that a lie in words is not a complete and total lie. This is
Finally, Socrates claims that the unjust man is ignorant, weak and bad. Socrates argument is effective in the way that he does not shatter Thrasymachus’ argument without reason, he is given many examples that change his way of thinking. Thrasymachus is told to put his ‘set in stone’ ideas under different situations, and once he does, he can clearly see that he should not have been so stubborn, as soon as he does so, he can see that his arguments aren’t suited to all situations. By the end of the argument, Thrasymachus isn’t so much debating the definition of justice, as he is defining the required traits to be a ruler of
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 both readings of Plato’s “The Apology” and Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience” one major principle that comes out of Thoreau’s text that Socrates would agree with is that in the face of laws by the state one should only abide if it is moral. Additionally, Thoreau believes that justice is superior to the laws enacted by the government, and the individual has the right to judge whether a given law reflects or flouts justice. Thoreau and Socrates believe that humans are moral beings and that virtue is very important. In contrast, however, even though both individuals have a lot of similarities there were some areas where Socrates’ views differed with Thoreau. Thoreau was all about the will and conscience of the individual while Socrates stood mostly
Among those three there is one form of friendship that is best, and that is the friendship based on good. According to Aristotle, the friendship based on a moral good is a perfect form of friendship that is enduring. However, his logic is highly based on assumption. These assumptions are not objective. Aristotle 's views may be seen as useful and logical, but they are influenced by too many subjective mental constructs, and that fact takes a good deal of credibility from his argument.
If a person knows what is ‘good’, then their manner of behaviour will always be good, as they possess the knowledge of how to do so. If a person acts in a ‘bad’ or evil way, this is simply because they lack the knowledge of how to act in a virtuous manner. For Socrates, it was simply a case of knowledge being conducive to good behaviour, and ignorance being conducive to bad behaviour. No-one chooses to act in an evil way, according to Socrates. We aim for good behaviour but fall short of