From the Apology, Plato shows how Socrates was unyielding in his morals. Any sensible person would have taken the choice to evade death and accepted the ignorant life was the best. However, Socrates defies this by stating the conjecture to the court that to fall to the swift wickedness is worse than death. With this, Plato is defining the logic of Socrates soul is right rather than the evident fact of what the court laws describe. In his passage of Crito, Plato examines the thought of honor in following through one’s own promise.
Aristotle also discusses the correlation between the nature of happiness and education. He suggests that education allows us to be good judges. Thus, education provides humans with the opportunity to be if not happy at least content in their decisions. Also, Aristotle argues that it is the nature of man to have different perspectives on the nature of happiness. Aristotle states some of the elements that are mistaken for happiness but are not attributable to the nature of happiness such as wealth.
Socrates believed that evil (bad action) was the result of ignorance. Why did he hold this view, and do you agree? Socrates believed that evil was the result of ignorance because people who do wrong things wouldn’t choose to do a bad thing if they knew better. Socrates believes this because if they were educated on what is good, they would have made a better decision instead of bad ones, I agree with him because they will always be people that would do bad and good things. Plato - Social and Political
This is extremely unfair treatment and have set up stereotypes in society.. Where for example if a wealthy person gets into a fight usually they say “well oh boys will be boys”. If we were to see that happen with a poor person specifically from the hood he would then be seen as a “thug”. People in society tend to think that these type of things are okay and they become the norm. These types of things are not okay and makes one realize how important money really is and how much it can contribute to certain situations. Which brings one to think justice is never served because no matter the consequence it 'll never
The doctrines of happiness: There are different perspectives on happiness, two of which are the hedonic and the eudaimonic views. Both views have roots in philosophy, such as Aristotle and Aristippus. Despite their ancient origins, these views on human well-being are relevant even today. The hedonic view encompasses the idea those people are happiest when their life is filled with positive experiences and emotions, without negative ones. According to Fredrickson et al.
Arguably, the happier an individual is, the better the quality of their life, and the better off they are. But despite this, there are people who will even argue that lower levels of happiness are the best because you maintain the ability to progress in life and your motivation is still present. Although many people will only see two sides to this argument, there is a totally different view that provides the optimal quality of life and the most beneficial outcome in the big picture; and that is moderate happiness. Cliff Oxford’s essay “High Performance Happy” evaluates the effect that an individual’s happiness has on their beneficiality to society and how you should always strive to be the happiest you can be. Oxford’s main point is that
Human beings will never get along with each other because everyone have their own desires and goals that keep them fighting for. In the book Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes describes three factors that leads to the state of war. The three factors are competition, distrust, and glory. People always compete with other because they cannot enjoy a single thing together. Human beings are never satisfied with what they have.
1. A living well argument – to do an unjust action ruin one’s soul, life is not worth living with a ruined soul. Conclusion, the most important thing is not life but living a moral and just life. 2. Consequences for Athens argument – if I escape from jail, then the laws of Athens will be destroyed, to destroy the laws of Athens harms the citizens and harming other is harming ones own soul, and last but not least, it is better to die than to live with a ruined soul.
The Good Life and Pirsig’s Quality The Good Life to me is a concept that compares directly with Pirsig’s Quality. I believe that the Good Life is an idea that people strive to obtain, but obtaining it can never be accomplished. Because of this, people use the concept of the Good Life as a form of inspiration in their lives. Having this form of inspiration in our lives gives us something to strive for, and can prove to be beneficial. The Good Life also proves to be a concept that can be difficult to define.
It is important to note that for Aristotle, humans do have the goal or purpose. He develops the function argument, during which he contemplates on what is characteristic of human, which would distinguish him from animals and plants. Aristotle comes up that it is the reason. Thus, the good life would be the fulfillment of human's potential, which essential involves the use of reason. Happiness is determined not by how we feel but rather by how we use our rationality.