Or would they have to be taught of this, as with other information they can recollect in an experience such as Deja-vu. I ask this because I wonder how Socrates can be so sure about the immortality of the soul. When I experience Deja-vu, I feel like the moment I am remembering comes from the same life that I am currently living, but at an earlier time. It also seems to only be arbitrary events that just seem extremely familiar. How does one know what the difference between what the soul desires and what the body desires?
Looking at the history of reflection on free will, it can be noticed that such concept was not known in the Ancient Greece. Albeit, Aristotle has shyly discussed about a concept of ‘’choice’’ (proairesis), however it is poorly connected with actual acts, let alone the power of free will. It can be argued that the Greek stoics somehow recognised the possible existence of free will, since they greatly attributed the necessity of defending our inner beliefs and morals, so that the human shall not inherently delve into seeking desires, not worry about them, as well as ignore the circumstances that are not dependant on us. Thus, stoicism attributed to the individual the necessity of being free from all external influences and defending their personal inner sentiments. The development of the concept of free will can be directly attributed and traced back to the late Roman stoicism, especially during the time of Epictetus, whose philosophical teachings and views were written down by one of his students.
According to skepticism, we can never reach a final decision regarding any issue because there will always be two opposing ideas that are equally compelling, in such a way that you cannot take anyone of them as a final answer. Sextus Empiricus, who is an ancient philosopher, explained in his book the principles of skepticism and the methods applied by a skeptic that will empower him to reach his ultimate goal which is mental tranquility. In this paper, I will discuss Sextus’s argument on how skepticism can bring peace to our life by shedding light on the steps that a skeptic uses while searching for knowledge. Moreover, I will be arguing against Sextus’s argument about assertions through presenting an argument from the Republic, in which it shows that assertions can lead us to mental tranquility. According to Sextus Empiricus, seeking knowledge can be achieved in different ways according to the type of philosopher you are.
Thereby, the dialogue leaves readers with unanswered question “Does goodness exist?” and if it exists what goodness is? In the other words, it means that Euthyphro tries to find answer but due to lack of knowledge and a straight thinking he could not find it. Nevertheless, Socrates
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.
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
Plato’s Parmenides includes within it a series of seemingly contradicting proofs about the nature and consequences of “the one”. In Deduction 1 of Part II of the Parmenides, Parmenides states that the one cannot have parts nor can it be a whole; however, Parmenides later seems to contradict himself when, in Deduction 2, he argues that the one must both have parts and be whole. In this paper, I will demonstrate that Parmenides comes to such contradictory conclusions about having parts and being whole in these differing deductions because he starts from a unique hypothesis in each deduction (from “if it is one” in Deduction 1 and from “if the one is” in Deduction 2). From this, however, I will argue that Parmenides’ definition of wholeness (i.e. that it is only that which has all of its parts) is too narrow, and that oneness, thus, can
Plato, however, disagrees. He states that not only is priori knowledge the true type of knowledge, but that posteriori knowledge is just a false opinion. This is because our senses are what are unreliable as knowledge can only be obtain through the
Plato’s The Republic 1)Why, and how successfully, does Thrasymachus contend that rulers cannot make mistakes? In a dispute with Socrates, Thrasymachus states that the ruler is incapable of making mistakes. He insists that if the man is a master of their craft, if this does really know what they are doing, they will not do anything wrong. According to philosopher, the reasons why one makes mistakes is that they lack certain knowledge or experience. That is why they are not skillful enough to perform duties properly.
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