By including what immortality covers the argument makes sense talking about nonliving things and living things. As stated before, for nonliving things the argument would not would very well. I think just by including premise number two the argument became stronger and is now valid. In the Republic Socrates’ explained how injustice and other vices are bad for a soul, so I do not believe an argument could be made against how they could not destroy the soul. I think adding this premise makes the argument valid and sound.
Rather than religion being utilized as a sort of hardware or gadget for getting what one needs, as was valid for Euthyphro's situation, Socrates trusts the basic role of genuine religion is to carry one's own life into amicability with the will of God. Religion and profound quality, in his view, are so firmly related that neither one of the ones can exist separated from the other. Dissimilar to the Sophists, who were familiar with think about the requests of ethical quality as just the wants of the general population who planned them, Socrates has faith in a standard of profound quality that is something more than the human conclusion. He distinguishes it with
In short knowing and doing are in the same line. In knowing the truth your virtues will ultimately be guided by this knowledge. The “telos” or ultimate goal of human life for Aristotle is to attain “happiness”. “Happiness” here is does not mean the common meaning which we use everyday but it is more synonymous to the war “eudaimonia” which means to be in a state of being that is in good spirit. This emphasis that happiness is not just a temporary thing but a permanent outlook on life which means that they only way for us to truly know whether we have had a happy life is when we die.
Goodness plays a huge role in society and, therefore, attracts a lot of attention of various philosophers and other thinkers. Plato is not an exception; his dialogue “Euthyphro” is concentrated all around this theme. It raises the question whether goodness exists at all; but at the same time, it leaves a reader with no answer. However, through Socrates it could be understood that, whatever can be defined precisely is real, that is why he tries to get an exact definition of goodness from Euthyphro in order to know if goodness is real or it is something impermanent, which is merely claimed by human society. Euthyphro made three attempts to give the definition and prove his religious knowledge.
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.
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 '.
Before continuing to argue for substance dualism, it is important to note that the definition of the mind which substance dualism speaks of is separate from the traditional definition and understanding of the mind in modern society, which usually includes the brain. In order to defend substance dualism, one must consider the existence of the soul, because it seems as though it is what substance dualism refers to as the mind. Many philosophers believe in the existence of the soul; it is also mentioned plentifully in Greek mythology as well as in
Belief is not Decision Pascal’s Wager, the argument that an individual who believes in God’s existence is entitled to infinite gains. There are three objections against Pascal article, including “the wrong motivation”, “too many options” and “Belief not a decision”. Among these three reasonable objections, I believe that the strongest one is “Belief not a decision”, because everything needs a reason as people are born as rational creatures. Otherwise, people believe in the existence of God because they trust that God could bring benefits to them. For me, although the objection is reasonable, I still think the Pascal’s response is stronger.
In the passage 81d (2002), Socrates describes a phenomenon where the human soul is ultimately immortal despite the perishable nature of the body. The immortality of soul means that the soul has learned everything that needs to be learned in its previous incarnations. So, the process which humans call learning, is in reality a step towards recollecting what the soul already knows. This disarms both horns of the dilemma because firstly, the idea of recollection suggests you do know everything in your soul and all you need to do is uncover them through reason. This means, you can rediscover things you perceive as unknown through inquiry and logic.
Next, Socrates purposes the argument from recollection to prove the immortality of the soul. He states that firstly, we recognize that the equal things we perceive are not perfectly equal (Phaedo, 74b). In other words, things that appear to be equal may fact not to be. Therefore, we have in our minds an idea of perfect equality (Phaedo, 74c); equal things and Equal itself are not the same. Next, there is such a thing as the Equal itself (Phaedo, 74c).