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
His argument relies more on human passion and how temptation plays a role in our decision making. Plato states that wanting something is not wrong; we are allowed to make choices that will not lead to any repercussions and still result in our own joy or pleasure. In his book, Republic II, Plato writes, “Tell me, do you think there is a kind of good we welcome, not because we desire what comes from it, but because we welcome it for its own sake—joy, for example, and all the harmless pleasures that have no results beyond the joy of having them?” (Republic II 357b). To this Plato agreed, saying that we are allowed to have pleasures that do not rely on the end result, but only because we find joy in the action. Relating this passage to the scenario given, Plato believes that eating a cheesesteak, even though we are vegetarian, is not a bad act because we are simply doing it for the joy of the act, not the results of said
The ultimate goal of human life for Plato is to know and understand the truth or the “eidos” of the “good”. The only way for us to see this truth is through our minds. The truth is not accessible in the physical world but in the intellectual realm. For us to be happy or for use to know the truth is only when we are beyond our physical sense it is a totally different level. So according to Plato, “knowledge” and “virtue” are corollary meaning that as long as one exists the other will follow.
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.
Thucydides focuses more of his observations on practical experience. He takes into account what has happened and what can be common sense. The Melians would not win with the Athenians purely because the did not have might. Thucydides deduced that by this manifest truth that if someone was able to hold their own against other conflicts, the good life would come naturally. On the other hand, Plato takes a stance of a more theoretical view.
Socrates applies this to just and unjust actions and refers to the not just life, but the good life. This does not have anything to do with the majority rule but with the one truth. (Crito,48a). Socrates agrees that if we can prove it is just to escape then he will. (Crito,48c.)
Aristotle states some of the elements that are mistaken for happiness but are not attributable to the nature of happiness such as wealth. Because it is the nature of man to pursue honor, the nature of happiness is also associated with this pursuit. However, it is the nature of man to aim for happiness despite each individual’s particular view of the concept. Although Aristotle acknowledges these different views that are attributable to happiness, he highlights the
He builds up to his final claim by first eliminating what justice cannot be, and then determining what aspects make justice a virtue. Firstly, Plato states it is never just to harm anyone, even if they truly are one’s enemy; if that were the case, justice would make others more unjust, and that defies itself (335d-e). Secondly, Plato denies that justice is law in the interest or advantage of the stronger. Rulers are not perfect, and often make laws to the advantage of those other than themselves (347d-e). Plato’s most controversial claim, however, is that justice is not the law at all, and even goes beyond the law.
Through his journey he discovered that he doesn’t need to be with a group and can be independent. His mindset soon becomes to be very selfish even by ignoring Liberty. Rand gives her theme of selfishness that she believes would benefit us all if we would only try
Thus, our actions that we do lies in that it maximizes pleasure and minimizes pain for us. Although he did say only rightfully act if it would result in pleasure, he did not recommend living extravagantly. This is pointed out in Larveson 's lecture notes; debating the pros and cons of a passionate love affair. In Epicurus’s view, to have the affair would prove to have the most pleasure, however, could also bring the most pain. The sum, Epicurus would see, would not net the most pleasure.
Utilitarianism is introduced on the basis that with these principles we can maximize the general welfare and that in doing so the state should not try to impose a general objectively preferred way of life because it will ultimately reduce overall happiness within a society. Individuals are to be responsible for their own choices whether good or bad, thus leading to freedom and the pursuit of one’s own good. Sandel continues to represent this argument on the basis that it chooses to position itself on the greatest good for the greatest number and thus introduces some of Mill’s suggestions on this perfectionist perspective of happiness. Sandel chooses to use Mill’s argument that in order to introduce the concept that the pursuit of freedom is acceptable so long as other individuals are not deprived of their right to pursue freedom in the