He is certain that prosecuting his father is the just and moral course of action because he believed it was commanded as such by the divine who are supposedly innately good. Unable to see the soundness in Euthyphro’s claim, Socrates proposes a question that has become known as possibly one of the oldest ethical questions in the history of philosophy. Socrates proposes the following question to Euthyphro, “Is what is holy (or moral) approved by the gods because it is holy, or is it holy because it is approved by the
One must not forget that the intellect is the source of deception; moreover, the metaphor used to exhibit this idea is mythology, no longer the animal metaphor. Mythology is metaphorical and tells stories about morals or philosophical questions such as what happens after death. By answering abstract concepts, mythology parallels with metaphors that create these concepts. Mythology for Nietzsche allows him to point to famous philosophers such as Sophocles and Plato. By pinpointing these men, he challenges the history of philosophy by undercutting what philosophy is built on which is language.
Socrates in the dialogue Alcibiades written by Plato provides an argument as to why the self is the soul rather than the body. In this dialogue Alcibiades and Socrates get into a discussion on how to cultivate the self which they both mutually agree is the soul, and how to make the soul better by properly taking care of it. One way Socrates describes the relationship between the soul and the body is by analogy of user and instrument, the former being the entity which has the power to affect the latter. In this paper I will explain Socrates’ arguments on why the self is the soul and I will comment on what it means to cultivate it. Alcibiades and Socrates try to figure out what the self really is because in order to cultivate it they would have to know what it is.
His main argument—his premises—is not diluted by this jump in reasoning. When one finishes this work they are not really contemplating taking his advice to wholly ignore reputation and superficiality, but rather one is reminded to try to pursue nobler aspects of life: truth, wisdom, and self-knowledge. The overall significance of my critique is that a literal interpretation of The Defense of Socrates can be dangerous as it promotes disregard for fellow humans. It can be used as an excuse for scholars to hermit themselves away, never abide by societal norms when interacting with others, and, due to a terrible reputation, never effectively share their ideas with the rest of society. While I am sure that there are not many literalist readers, the fact that this severe deductive reason and broad, dangerous conclusion exist in this work should still be noted as a flaw in sound
Furthermore, just decision making should not be interfered with in the face of death because we simply do not know that death is a bad thing. Socrates explains this further in passage 29a, “You see, fearing death, gentlemen, is nothing other than thinking one is wise when one isn’t, since it’s thinking one knows what one doesn’t know. I mean, no one knows whether death may not be the greatest of all goods for people, but they fear it as if they knew for certain that it’s the worst thing of all. Yet surely this is the most blameworthy ignorance of thinking one knows what one doesn’t know,” (Plato, 44). In this passage, Socrates conveys that because man does not know what the consequences of their own death are, whether it is the worst thing or best thing that can happen to them, it is selfish and irrelevant to let their irrational fears of the unknown interfere with their lifestyle and decisions if they believe themselves to be leading a just and honorable
I think that if we use as Garrett DeWeese talked about the “idea of virtue epistemology” and one “faithfully employing intellectual virtues, our noetic structure” would be right because we would be dealing with basically beliefs that are true. When we combine those beliefs with intellectual virtues we get to our “epistemological goals” When Socrates talked about most men wanted to escape the cave and see reality, in my opinion that would be true. In the same token there are those who might not want to leave the cave because that is all they know. If man wants to get out of the cave, what is his motivation? I don’t think he would want to be chained up and not able to move his hands, feet or ever move his head from side to side.
My argument based upon Epictetus stoicism rhetoric is that Thoreau himself is a stoic when considering his philosophical outlooks. First, Thoreau was an advocate for the emotional detachment of material or property as we see in the “Walden,” (Economic chapter E). Thoreau’s belief that what a man owns doesn’t implicate who he is as a person. Falls in line with Epictetus claims of property not being under our control. Reason being, is it might
It was Socrates’ goal to get his friends to practice the art of philosophical inquiry. Subsequently it invokes readers to question what they think, and in doing so, practice philosophical inquiry. This makes the reader question and transform their thoughts and push the bounds of their preconceived thoughts of what the soul is. Not only does the Phaedo drive readers to question what this soul is, it also makes you question what happens when you die but also challenges you to ask yourself; If you have lived a good life. The Phaedo states that the best for humanity is foremost to have never been born, and secondly if you are alive, the second best is to “dies, as quickly as possible.” This phenomena has Socratic irony in the sense that that what is best for current humanity is not achievable since we are mortal and currently living.
In Plato’s Republic, Socrates utilizes logical dialogue with his fellow Athenians to uncover the timeless and elusive ideal of justice. The dilemma begins to surface in book II through Glaucon’s challenging that justice is not inherently, but rather consequentially good. Socrates argues that justice is among the highest of virtues that are both consequentially and intrinsically good, individually defining it as the harmony of the tripartite soul: the balance between reason, appetite, and spirit (132). Upon further investigation, however, Socrates’ assertion not only fails to refute Glaucon’s argument for people’s reluctance toward justice, but he is also unsuccessful in outlining the innate worth behind the ideal. Nonetheless, Socrates’ endeavor
The form of Man is itself a male then the Form shares a ownership in frequent with the males that join in. Considering the theory needs that any group of individuals with a mutual property, there is a Form to clarify the common as it seems that the theory does absolutely give rise to the dangerous fall back (Loyd, n.d.). For many years there has been arguments over Plato’s theory of Forms was exposed to the Third man argument. Aristotle believed in the theory, he announces it by using Parmenides to say his dismissal of the theory of Forms or rather consider that the Third Man argument can be ignored by creating changes to the theory of Forms (Loyd, n.d.). In Plato’s Laws his last work he never finished the Theory of Forms shows to have discarded completely.