In his book “The Republic”, Plato argues vis-à-vis Socrates that the philosopher is, in fact, the happiest person. He draws this conclusion when he compares it against that of a money-lover and an honour-lover. This paper will expound on the argument put forth by Socrates and in doing so will provide the reasons for my support of his argument.
In Book 9 of “The Republic”, Socrates wants to find out the type of person that enjoys the most pleasant life and therefore, suggests that the soul of each individual be divided into three parts: the appetitive, the spirited and the rational. He corresponds each of these to people and categorizes them into three different kinds, based on what part rules them. The money-loving and profit-loving, the
…show more content…
He does so when he makes the statement, “Observe then that, apart from those of a knowledgeable person, the other pleasures are neither entirely true nor pure but are like a shadow-painting...” (583b). Socrates defines pleasure and pain as opposites of each other; pleasure is the absence of pain and vice-versa. He then states that the pleasure derived for the money-lover and honour-lover are dependent on the body, therefore, cannot be considered as genuine pleasure. These two types of people are ruled by the appetitive and spirited parts. Both their pleasures are connected to needs within the body, whether it be in the form of hunger and thirst or the pursuit of control and triumph. Socrates considers their desire a source of pain as it helps satisfy a need, the ‘pleasure’ they get is nothing but short-lived freedom from the pain. Since their desires are insatiable they live in constant state of pain and less pain, not true pleasure. It is the pleasure of the philosopher that is based solely on human effort, that Socrates considers being genuine. The philosopher is on a constant search for truth. The pleasure of learning is more significant to ones’ overall happiness than pleasures of the body. Only when the soul is ruled by the philosophic part does it enjoy true
With those two teachings, comes another one of his more deeply meaningful quotes “an unexamined life is not worth living for a human being”. This statement by Socrates is one that gets a human being to think about what he meant by what an examined life or unexamined life is. His quote is telling people to go through life and analyze and question things, because if not they have not lived life the way it should be for a human being. Without examining life, life would become a stagnant environment, never evolving from past cultures and past ideals.
Examining one’s life can bring many joys. There are many things that give people the idea that their lives are meaningful. These ideas could be the pursuit of pleasure and happiness, entertainment, sports, power and money, possessions and security, being famous and success, meeting other people, knowledge and every other thing that can give the smallest amount of happiness to the person. In the apology Plato describes Socrates’ venture to question people would were wise and content with their wisdom, but when they asked a series of questions to test their wisdom they were revealed not to be wise and were now upset. The flaw in that was that these people did not examine what had happened to them and did not learn from it.
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.
In the seventh book of Plato's republic there are several important symbols that mean many different things. All these symbols are mostly from the descriptions of the cave in which it closely resembles a cinema. A cinema where people are shackled, forced to watch the images that are presented in front of them. They have no other alternative, their necks are shackled to forever watch these images. Images made of statues that cast a shadow from a ledge above moved by other people which I can only assume as their captors.
Another difficulty I see here is an incorrect assessment of the problem that Aristotle is addressing. In the text of the Republic, as Plato makes his case for goodness existing above being using the Greek phrase dunamei huperechontos (surpassing it in power), Glaucon responds with daimonias huperbolês (that’s a preternatural exaggeration) (509c). Thus, it is explicit in the text that Plato is making a controversial claim, and I argue that it is controversial for a good reason. Here is an example of Plato’s idealism, which is extrapolated upon at length in the allegory of the cave. The dilemma for Plato, therefore, becomes this: if the form (eidos) of the good is, in itself, an idea that is ontologically superior to being, then how might an
This relationship was based upon total compassion and love. Socrates was there in his Right’s last moments. He proved to be a loyal friend giving his own, fairly limited, wealth to better Right’s standard of living. This male relationship is different from the other two, in that it has much more vulnerability. Rather than Socrates serving as a mentor or challenger, he is serving as Right’s equal.
I think that there is a fallacy of irrelevance. In the book, Socrates sets out to defend the idea that it is always in one’s best interest to be just and to act justly and he suggests that the just person as one who has a balanced soul will lead one to act justly or why mental health amounts to justice. I feel that justice includes actions in relation to others, it includes considerations of other people’s good, and includes strong motivations not to act unjustly. I believe that Socrates’ defense of justice does not include constraining reasons to think that a person with a balanced soul will refrain from acts that are commonly thought to be unjust like theft, murder, and adultery.
Here is my first piece of evidence to support my point. “I happen to be a gift of the god to the city; and this is how you can tell: Unlike most people, I have neglected all my own interests, and I’ve put up with this private neglect for so many years, while always attending to your business.” (Lines 108-111) In the quote stated above, Socrates claims that even with the annoyance people found in him, he pursued in his mission to help the people. Even though he had to give up his interests and hobbies, he did not give up his mission and focused on his work with the people all those years.
Another thing Socrates is famous for is his twisting of nature in a paradoxical way to serve his own desire to persuade: to Socrates, virtue, wisdom, and eudaemonia are directly linked, a recurring idea in many of his dialogues. His definition of happiness and morality is far different from anyone else’s, especially from Callicles’ and Nietzsche who believes that the law of nature takes over (also perceived this way by Nietzsche). E.R. Dodds mentions the idea that Nietzsche finds a reflexion of himself in Callicles, ascetic Socrates’ most interesting interlocutor in the “Gorgias”. Interesting in the fact that Callicles appears to be a purely hedonistic personage, whose definition of a good life is one where all pleasures of the body are maximised,
In the context of the Aeneid, the pleasures that were expressed in the poem, such as the pleasure of love and the pleasure of conquest seem to not have much of a conflict with Plato’s opinions because he also believed that they led them astray to their destinies and goals in the human life. Plato prominently believes that humans should focus on fulfilling and abiding in values such as courage, justice and wisdom. In the Republic, he emphasizes how crucial these values are to a human life. Moreover, Plato illustrates the importance of having these virtues and goals in order to pursue a higher ideal. Even though Plato acknowledges the significance of pleasure in one’s life, he believes that it will negatively affect the focus of humans in their
Socrates mentions that “if he called to mind his fellow prisoners and what passed for wisdom in his former dwelling-place, he would surely think himself happy in the change and be sorry for them” (Plato par. 28). The man feels relief to know he is truly free, but feels remorse for the other prisoners in their false reality. Plato shows that Socrates emphasizes the importance of truth and how it changes people entirely. Truth leads to happiness which leads to enlightenment and an end to suffering.
One of the main focuses in the Republic of Plato is to prove the value of justice. In Books VIII and IX, tyranny and the soul of the tyrant are discussed at great length with the ultimate goal of proving why it is worthwhile to be just. The portrait of the tyrant is developed in such detail to acts as a metaphor for injustice, while the true philosopher represents justice. By portraying the tyrant in a way that makes clear his faults, Plato is able to demonstrate perfectly the need for justice in both the city and the soul. Through careful analysis of the tyrannical soul, Plato contrasts the philosopher king and the tyrant and in doing so reveals the role that justice plays in the distinguishing between them.
The concept of the Noble Lie is presented by Plato in the Republic. In Republic, Plato is engaged in creating an ideal political community, through the noble lie. The Noble Lie, ironically, despite being a lie, is still recognized as ‘noble’ by Plato since it aims to promote social welfare and harmony amongst the citizens. Plato’s idea of the noble lie led to the division of citizens into three distinct categories, namely, the rulers, the auxiliaries and the workmen . This paper will argue that Socrates principle of the Noble Lie must be considered justifiable under circumstances in which it intends to achieve moral ends.
A fool can be satisfied but he will not see all the aspects that Socrates will see. Thus making him ignorant to the reasons for Socrates dissatisfaction. Although Socrates claims to be ignorant himself, he is one of most respected and studied philosophers in history. This shows that he was clearly onto something with his ideals. Socrates might say that the fool’s satisfaction is not the kind that he would want, he would want a much more fulfilling satisfaction than one who seeks common wants such as wealth, fame etc… Would Socrates be satisfied if he knew the answer to every question he or someone else asked?
What is republic? According to Plato republic is a way through that he made principles for behavior of human life. Plato studied about nature and value of justice. Plato studied other qualities like construction of society as a entire and in the nature of an individual human being.