The eyes of many, Socrates argued, were of no importance because one should shadow the wise, and pay little importance to public opinion. Socrates states “if the many could do the greatest evil; for then they would also be able to do the greatest good--and what a fine thing this would be! But in reality they can do neither; for they cannot make a man either wise or foolish; and whatever they do is the result of chance” (Plato). I believe that this statement forces Crito to look at the bigger picture. To realize what is just and unjust to get a bigger picture of who we might gather opinions from.
Socrates shows a relation between goods and wisdom when he argues that aggregate individual wisdom is improved over one’s lifetime and this improvement may be quantified in terms of material goods acquired. In essence, he argues that greater acquisition of goods only comes through correctly applied wisdom, thus it is the wisdom itself (not the material goods) that is most important. Socrates concludes by arguing (in Apology, not Euthydemus) that misfortune and other men may take away all the material goods of a wise man, including his life, but they can never take his acquired wisdom (Apology 29d2-30b4). It is on this final point that we find one of the chief rationales to call Socrates a happy man—because his death cannot negate his accumulated wisdom, and since happiness is the telos of wisdom, Socrates must be a happy man. Add to this his own argument describing how, in fact, he finds happiness in his forthcoming
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.
Socrates argument is: Everyone knows bad things, in so far as they are bad, are harmful. So, to want something you believe to be bad as such, involves wanting to be harmed. But no one wants to be harmed. Therefore, no one wants bad things, in-so-far as they are bad, as such. To effectively refute this argument, one could simply provide a counter example to one or more of Socrates’ premises.
However, although Rachel’s argument is influential, what makes it weak is that the evil intentions of Smith and Jones do not directly correlate to the two forms of euthanasia. In the Smith and Jones case, they both intended harm to their cousin to gain a large inheritance. For this reason, because they were both morally wrong, there is no moral difference between the cases. Also, just because one fails to prevent the death of someone else does not mean that they have the same moral intention an active killer. For example, failure to prevent someone’s death could be due to inaccessibility or ignorance.
Though it is interesting and may prove itself philosophically very useful, its use would depend on the ability of being able to make sense of it. Plato’s theory of Forms (abstract universals) never really gets to the theory stage as throughout his works he unfortunately never provides his readers with a unified view on forms. Not even in The Republic which was meant as an address to Plato’s own thought. In books 5-10 he means to elucidate his theory, only to provide us with contradictory examples on what the Forms are. (Ridenour) Like Socrates with the elenchus, Plato does not gain greater knowledge with the
With all that said, Socrates made the right call by refusing to run to exile to save his life. This is because running to exile would have meant that all that he had done in almost his whole life was useless. All the rules he had set for himself would have been of no use if he was to break them ultimately. The law is to be obeyed whether it favors someone or not and that is exactly the rule that Socrates followed. In this case, it was against him, and he obeyed it just the way he would have if it went in his favor
I do agree with Socrates that rhetoric is mostly misused and dangerous for both the speaker and the listener. I believe rhetoric is dangerous for the speaker because that person maybe don’t understand how much power they hold over someone. It can be dangerous for the listener for the simply fact is the information they’ve been give may or may not be correct. I think past experience motivated Socrates feel this way about the usage of rhetoric. One example that Socrates proves that rhetoric is being misused is his example of the physician and I agree because this happens now in the world.
Egotistical behavior tends to be looked down upon, and is considered to be corrupt and reprehensible. It is also considered wrong to put your own opinions and ideas before others’, especially if it will affect others negatively. Odysseus evidently has demonstrated that his actions are for his own best interest of appearing to be
Those who commit wicked acts because they can not see what is truly good have a skewed point of view for a reason. Their character is tainted by vice because they have habitually committed vicious acts in the past. Since they originally had a conscience, they must have willingly committed wrongdoing to warp their perception of what is good. Therefore, those who pursue an apparent good but commit wrong acts, due to a skewed appearance of what is good, are still responsible for their
The first concept that I noticed shared by Russell and Socrates was the concept that one had to remove themselves before serious philosophical contemplation could take place. In Russell 's case, he refers to the "Self" and the "Not-Self". With Socrates, as seen in the Apology, confronting his accuser about the corruption of youth, his accuser is silent because he had not given the matter any thought. Socrates awareness of his own ignorance frees him from what Russell would refer to as "Self". I mention this because it serves as a common theme even as both philosophers differ in their messages.