Thrasymachus continues to claim his position but in a modified form of his first argument, after Socrates commented. Being unjust, Thrasymachus thinks, is better than being just because it 's stronger and leads to a more happy life. As before he, he only takes into consideration only the advantages or disadvantages of being just, and he doesn 't discuss what 's justice or how it plays a role in people. Essentially, this definition is an extreme extension of the previous one. The example he gives that a tyrant gets happy through being unjust and controlling draws us back to his first argument saying that ‘ruling being the advantage of the stronger '.
According to Socrates, a virtuous person should plot any means to see that an enemy does not appear in front of a justice system when he or she finds out that that enemy has erred. Callicles wonders at the concept of morality being championed by Socrates and wonders if he is joking. In sum, this dialogue tries to give different implications of body politic and sciences, in which Socrates argues that science corrupts the politics and that science should be eliminated in order for politics to remain immoral. Latour comes with a critique of these Socrates suppositions mentioning that currently, science has been immortalized by
In Book 1 of the republic, by Plato, we are introduced to two central figures in the argument of justice, Socrates and Thrasymachus. Thrasymachus claims that justice is the advantage of the stronger. Socrates then asks if his understanding, that what is beneficial to the stronger is just and must be beneficial to the weaker people, to which Thrasymachus replies that no, this is not so. He explains that justice is that which obtains the advantage of the stronger. He uses the example of ruling a city, where a government would change the rules and laws to best suit them, and as the rules are followed by those who act justly, the just would be acting in the favour of the stronger.
When it comes to justice, Polemarchus believes that justice is “…helping friends and harming enemies.”. Socrates questions this point of view because according to Polemarchus’ view point, only the people who are close to him and in his circle of friends would be worthy of any kind of Justice. Polemarchus is wrong in this viewpoint because if only the people that you know who are of your similar social status and you interact with on a day to day basis are considered friends, what of those that you do not know? Or what of those who are not of your social status, that you do not interact with? Socrates questions this by asking, “Do you mean by friends those who seem to be good to an individual, or those who are, even if they don't seem to be, and similar with enemies?”.
There names are Rene Descartes and Plato. Plato and Descartes are two Greek philosophers that believe in Rationalism, yet both have a different perspective of it. I will explain both philosopher’s methods when it comes to viewing the everyday world, talk about their similarities and differences, and then choose Descartes’s method regarding Rationalism. I agree with Descartes method a lot more than Plato’s because I feel that inborn knowledge is a form of deception and escaping your reality, like Plato would suggest, would only leave you to be deceived even more. Both Plato and Descartes believe in Rationalism, and they also fear uncertainty.
I believe that Socrates may be guilty of trying to corrupt the young people because he did encourage them to ask questions and not follow others’ blindly. Socrates did not overtly challenge the gods and their word, however he did encourage people, especially young people, to make their own opinions based on various information, and, in the end, follow their own thoughts. I feel as though the types of questions Socrates was asking were not harmful because he was only testing Euthyphros on how he knew all of his facts, and wanted proof of his opinions. Therefore, I believe people should question, should analyze information, and should form their own judgments rather than listening to someone else’s opinion and blindly following that
What things would people call good by themselves? Aristotle asks if things that are pursued even when alone and isolated, things like intelligence and pleasure, would be considered for this. He then says that, on the other hand, it could be nothing more than the idea of good itself, which would be considered empty. However, he then backtracks slightly, saying that if what the attributes he had said before had good in them, that the account of good would be similar between each of
By doing this we secure our fate and deny life itself. We deny the progression of humanity by denying a condition that makes us human. Which is the ability to evaluate and question life through our own eyes. An ability that Socrates argued for which ultimately led to his death. In this paper, I will highlight the importance of “The Apology” and how it contributed to its field as well as why it is still relevant today.
I think that Prometheus is a perfect example of an egoist because he only cares about his happiness, he is miserable working for others, and because he thinks he owes nothing to everybody. “Egoism states that each man’s primary moral obligation is to achieve his own welfare, well-being, or self-interest…He should be ‘selfish’ in the sense of being the beneficiary of his own moral actions.” (Glossary of Definitions by Ayn Rand, pg. 12) In the book everything Prometheus does benefit him to reach his welfare in Happiness. On page 95 of Anthem Equality writes “For I know what happiness is possible to me on earth. And my happiness needs no higher aim to vindicate it.
The completely unjust man, who indulges in all his negative urges, lives like a God because he has secured himself the reputation of being a just man. While the just man, with a poor reputation, is scorned and wretched just from his reputation. Adeimantus believes there is no advantage in being just if you are not actively perceived that way. When it comes to Gods, he believes they are easily swayed, to look the other way if you are unjust, by sacrifices, gentle prayers, and offerings. Adeimantus, Glaucon, and Socrates begin to create the ideal city and to also locate justice within it.