“Aristotle’s remarks about truth show his commitment to metaphysical realism”. (Irwin, 1988, p.5) This statement explains why the truth is an important concept in Aristotle’s Realist view, because it boils down to the collection facts that will be the basis of his inquiry that will create an objective reality. What also sets the Aristotelian realist view to the Thucydidean is its triviality. This is because all things that constitutes Aristotle’s philosophy involves the things which regards to the nature of things, in contrast to Thucydides’ accounts that is trivial and is a result of certain events. Historians,
Whereas Plato thought that experiments and reasoning are enough to provide the qualities of an object, Aristotle was in favour of the experience and observation. In logic, Plato was more favoured the use of inductive reasoning, while Aristotle used deductive reasoning. The syllogism, a basic unit of logic of A = B, and B = C, then A = C, was developed by Aristotle. Both regarded that thoughts were far more preferable to senses. However Plato stated that senses could fool a person but Aristotle believed that senses are required to establish reality in a proper way.
The reason philosophers write truth statements this way is to give sense to the idea that a statement about the world could be wrong or, more accurately, false (philosophers refer to the part in quotes as a statement or proposition). Perhaps you can now see why beliefs are different than truth statements. When you believe something, you hold that or accept that a statement or proposition is true. It could be false that’s why your belief may not “match up” with the way the world really
Reasoning is all the positive and opposing arguments that support or critique the thesis by using logic. Socrates was accused and charged with being a corruptor of the youth and denying the gods of the city but introducing other divinities. Socrates defends his case by using reasoning and logic. Socrates said that if every Athenian improved the youth while only he corrupts them, then is influence should not have a greater effect than all the Athenians. Socrates didn’t corrupt the youth.
Socrates ' and the Good Brahmin 's Approach to Philosophy Socrates, as described by Plato (n.d., 360 B.C.E. ), and the Good Brahmin, as described by Voltaire (1926), are both dedicating their whole life to philosophy, to the point that both seem unable to live without engaging in the pursuit of wisdom. Nonetheless, the way they approach people, and the lessons they derive from their reflections differ deeply. Paradoxically, although if we are used to think of Western thought as more selfish as compared to Eastern wisdom, Socrates seems more altruistic than the Good Brahmin, and also more concerned with society as a whole. Socrates approaches people in an attempt to find out why the oracle of Delphi told him he is the wisest man of all (Plato, n.d.).
This is because everyone, including philosophers, hold a specific position on an issue and cannot possibly know everyone’s position, leading to a biased truth. However, he too believes that not everyone is equal, but he doesn’t think that philosophers are an exemption. In fact, he believes that philosophers are among the worst at claiming that their biases/prejudices are the truth. As such, I argue that Nietzsche’s conclusion prevails because Plato fails to recognize that he has a bias in favor of the philosopher’s ability to discover truth and remove their own prejudices. However, let’s begin by constructing their arguments and seeing where their opinions come from.
Read in this style, the discussion as a whole invites us to share in Plato 's vision of our place within the ultimate structure of reality. What are philosophical views in republic? In the Republic Plato, speaking through his teacher Socrates, sets out to
Plato & Aristotle on harmful humor Humor isn’t always light-hearted and fun. Plato and Aristotle both discuss the ways people have vices, how the vices relate to humor, and how to live in greater harmony. They use different concepts, Plato talks about how vices arise from disrupting the balance of the soul and through self ignorance, while Aristotle discusses the balance of behaving morally and the vices attached to extreme behavior. In the Republic: Book IV Plato talks about what he believes are the three parts of the soul, reason, spirit, and appetite. Reason is the part that guides the other parts of the soul, it analysis and rationalizes options, and determines the best overall choice.
On receiving this point of view based on Justice Plato went further to decipher Polemarchus’ idea. He referred to the analogy of the friend and sword, along with many other analogies countering in what he believes to be a ridiculous claim Polemarchus made. Each claim Polemarchus made to further convey his opinion Socrates made a counter analogy. Each showing the wrong doers and/or right doers. Current time Justice has not been followed by these standards.
The philosopher Socrates and his thought process have shaped Greek philosophical thinking for generations. He is revered by academics and feared by others due to his complex method of thinking and attempt to understand the deeper workings of life. He believes that knowledge is directly related to virtue so in order to live a virtuous life one must seek knowledge. The main goal of Socrates’ philosophical work and teaching was not to get someone to realize a particular fact but rather to entice philosophical thinking and ultimately strive for perfection of the human character. The Socratic method was just a means to an end for Socrates and the end was this excellence.