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.
To appease Zeus was thus to maintain favor, fortune and prominence: To oppose him or otherwise displease him was, essentially, unthinkable…or illogical. Therefore, an appeasement of the gods was as necessary as the air to breath. However, Aristotle would present logical arguments which would demonstrate a need for those within Greece (and the ancient world) to rely more upon logic than myth, as logos was the more prominent ‘trait’ to abide by when all the layers were stripped away. One such argument, modus
How do their approaches to their subjects, their style of expression, and their claims differ from each other? In what ways are they similar? A: In Meno Plato was attempting to convey the idea of true virtue, and did it in a style of long form verbal examples, in the excerpt we read he walks a young student though the fallacies of logic, proving Plato’s point about truly understanding something (Or lack of understanding). Whereas Aristophanes is writing for an audience that should be taken as a commentary and critics of Socrates, but as more humorous than anything. 3. Who are the intended
These two questions were the main idea of the discussion between Socrates and his friends: Glaucon, Adeimantus, Polemarchus, Cephalus… Socrates asks the question of the definition of justice, each one of the interlocutors answers the question in his own way that, according to Socrates, reflects his own personality. One of the important definitions given was that given by Thrasymachus: he defines justice as the advantage of the stronger. “Now listen, I say that the just is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger. Well why don’t you praise me? But you won’t be willing”.
His definition equivocates knowledge and courage itself, rather than saying knowledge is necessary for courage. However, knowledge is not the only necessary condition for courage in his definition. Thus, the particulars of fearful and hopeful become problematic for Socrates. As Socrates points out through further questioning if one were to have such knowledge as stated by Nicias - one would have knowledge of all virtues, “of practically all goods and evils put together” (199d1). The elenctic method draws out contradictions in Nicias beliefs, leading again to a conflicted answer.
Voltaire had some of the same ideas compared with Socrates. Like Socrates, he believed that knowledge and reason should be held above all things, even happiness. He believed that it was better to be unhappy and knowledgeable than happy and ignorant, but even though he held this belief, he didn 't understand why this was so. Even after discussing this idea with other philosophers, who agreed with him that knowledge should be held higher than happiness, they could not come to a conclusion of
The world we live in is filled with crime, evil, and injustice, but do people have the desire to do bad things knowing that they are bad, or do they do them thinking that they are good? In this essay, I examine Socrates argument, found in Plato’s Meno, that no one knowingly desires bad things. If Socrates were right, it would mean that it is impossible for someone to perform a bad action based on their desire for that bad thing. Instead, all bad desires result from the ignorance of the person performing the action in falsely believing that the action is good. Though Socrates presents a compelling argument, I argue that it is possible for someone to act badly, all the while knowing that what they desire is bad.
As for Voltaire, the best way to achieve happiness is to follow your heart. Both Voltaire and Socrates agree upon the fact that knowledge brings wisdom and success. But Voltaire suggested that knowledge brings unhappiness, whereas Socrates thinks that knowledge is everything and that knowledge is the key to everything. As for me my view about philosophy is that knowledge is important if it is true knowledge. Philosophy is fascinating as there is only a certain much that we know about things that it is hard to what is true and what is
For Epictetus, some of the things that are in our control are our likes, opinions, and pursuits. While, the things out of our control is the body, your reputation, property, and instruction. In a stoic view one's disappointment only comes into play when one attaches their dislikes to what is considered uncontrollable. Contrarily, one is in control of their emotions because they are in control of their actions. My argument based upon Epictetus stoicism rhetoric is that Thoreau himself is a stoic when considering his philosophical outlooks.
The phrase “ignorance is bliss” has many different ways of being interpreted. The idea that what we do not know cannot hurt us, and that it is better to be in a situation whereby we are ignorant to the truth, rather than a situation where we know a hurtful truth, is one that can be debated at length. One of the best examples of the idea of “ignorance is bliss”, and the impact that the truth can have on people, is the Allegory of the Cave, a concept created by the Greek philosopher Plato in the fourth century BCE. The allegory shows how our perspective can change radically when given new information, and how that new information, when shared with others who are not aware of it, can give them a radically incorrect idea of the truth, when not taken in the proper context. Here, we will first explain the concept of this Allegory of the Cave, before interpreting its meaning and how it related to the greater ideals, values, and convictions that Plato and his philosophical works stood for during and after his lifetime.