Polemarchus’s Justice In this paper, I will be analyzing the concept of justice, tackled during the conversation between Polemarchus and Socrates. The Republic, (book I), the dialogues oppose, one by one, different concepts of justice.. Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus offer each an answer to the Socratic question “What is justice?”. After discussing this issue with Cephalus, it is now Polemarchus’s turn to inherit the argument. After a debate, mostly monopolized by Socrates, the definition of justice is ambiguously concluded. I might, question the following: Can a just man by doing justice be doing injustice ?
Sometimes, it can also take the form of self-derision. It is one of the oldest themes on the basis of which humor is analyzed. According to this theory, a person can be found comical is therefore considered to be inferior, if he or she is inadequate according to a set of agreed-upon group or societal criteria. Both Plato and Aristotle wrote about humor as a form of mockery or disdain, usually self-directed, which should be kept at a minimum (Janco, 1984). The expression of humor as superiority can either serve the mechanism of control or a form of
Socrates defence against this was, “You aren’t all convincing, Meletus, not even, it seems to me, to yourself. You see, men of Athens, this fellow seems very arrogant and intemperate to me and to have written this indictment simply out of some sort of arrogance, intemperance, and youthful rashness.” (Plato, Apology, 26e) Socrates believed that, “Meletus has brought his charges based on prejudice alone- without any reasoned or evidentiary basis” ( Rick, Class 5, Slide 17). Socrates continued to believed that Meletus claims against him were a preconceived idea and that he had no actual proof of where Socrates has said that he does not believe a higher power. Socrates contains to say, “But if, when the God
First of all, Shakespeare uses verbal irony so Mark Antony can persuade his audience. The use of verbal irony lets us know that Mark Antony is trying to insult Brutus while seeming to praise him. Each time Antony says “Brutus is an honourable man” we begin to wonder if he really is an honourable man. He is being a little sarcastic each time he addresses Brutus. Before Antony spoke he was given a list of rules from Brutus that he had to follow.
Plato employs Socratic discussion to converse upon these issues — encouraging his interlocutors to interrogate — by asking numerous open-ended questions in order implore others to examine their beliefs. Comparatively, Aristotle deviates from dialogue and instead expresses and elucidates on his theories in a prosaic and meticulous fashion. Plato’s work reads like an offbeat conversation between curious minds. The questions he poses are deeply profound, often leaving his converser lost for rebuttal as the meaning behind his statements can be, at first, difficult to decipher. A comparison can be drawn between the topics Plato discusses and the way in which he discusses them; just as it can be sometimes arduous to understand the connotation behind the assertions Plato makes in order to bolster his arguments for or against a certain issue, it can be just as (or even more so) difficult to understand the issue
On trial, he performed The Apology, to the judges who didn’t take it as an apology but more as defense statements. Intellectual curiosity is shown in that piece of writings because it’s about how he doesn’t agree with the ways of the people of Athens and ways they could change. He adds in information about the answers he had received from people about that society and tries to prove his innocence. The Socratic Method of Teaching is another example of how he was intellectually curious. That system of education focuses on providing students with questions and the truths in answers.
(199, a~b) The major difference between Socrates’ and Agathon’s concept of Eros was that Agathon claimed Eros to be the god, while Socrates said Eros was a child between god of Resource and god of Poverty, and that Eros serves as an intermediary spirit between gods and mortals. Socrates gets his point across by utilizing the “Socratic Method,” which is done by asking Agathon sequence of questions, so that Agathon feels less certain about his knowledge on
Therefore, since Athens has a part to play in corrupting Socrates’s life as well as his mistaken visual of the truth, Socrates must understand that by obeying the state, he has done injustice to his soul for it will not be in true harmony. Furthermore he will be doing an injustice to the state because Plato would have established that, objectively, Athens laws are unjust and even if Socrates thinks that they are just, it is only because Socrates has been corrupted by
He was a student at “The Academy” where was taught Plato’s ideas in Athens. Later Aristotle opened his own school called “The Lyceum”. Aristotle and Plato were great philosophers and still they have tremendous impact on thinkers. Even though Aristotle was a student of Plato’s school , his ideas about theory of forms and poems were different from Plato and he criticized Plato’s ideas. In the paper, I will show the different points that they have the ideas of forms, poetry and the methods they used while arguing their ideas.
Book One of Plato’s The Republic includes an argument between two individuals, Socrates and Thrasymachus, where they attempt to define the concept of justice. Thrasymachus states that justice is what is advantageous for the stronger, however, Socrates challenges this belief through pointing out holes in Thrasymachus’s argument. In this paper, I will reconstruct the steps of this argument in order to evaluate the claims of both Socrates and Thrasymachus and demonstrate that, Socrates had a stronger claim than Thrasymachus in regards to justice because of the flawed assumptions Thrasymachus makes in relation to the word “advantageous,” how rulers behave, and how government is implemented. His assumptions not only lack external evidence, but Thrasymachus is unable to be critical of the fact that his assumptions just mimic general understandings of the word “advantageous,” without deeper thought of what the word truly means in this context. The argument begins when Thrasymachus first states that, “justice is nothing other than what is advantageous for the stronger” (pg.