In Book 1 of the republic, by Plato, we are introduced to two central figures in the argument of justice, Socrates and Thrasymachus. Thrasymachus claims that justice is the advantage of the stronger. Socrates then asks if his understanding, that what is beneficial to the stronger is just and must be beneficial to the weaker people, to which Thrasymachus replies that no, this is not so. He explains that justice is that which obtains the advantage of the stronger. He uses the example of ruling a city, where a government would change the rules and laws to best suit them, and as the rules are followed by those who act justly, the just would be acting in the favour of the stronger.
His definition equivocates knowledge and courage itself, rather than saying knowledge is necessary for courage. However, knowledge is not the only necessary condition for courage in his definition. Thus, the particulars of fearful and hopeful become problematic for Socrates. As Socrates points out through further questioning if one were to have such knowledge as stated by Nicias - one would have knowledge of all virtues, “of practically all goods and evils put together” (199d1). The elenctic method draws out contradictions in Nicias beliefs, leading again to a conflicted answer.
According to Socrates, a virtuous person should plot any means to see that an enemy does not appear in front of a justice system when he or she finds out that that enemy has erred. Callicles wonders at the concept of morality being championed by Socrates and wonders if he is joking. In sum, this dialogue tries to give different implications of body politic and sciences, in which Socrates argues that science corrupts the politics and that science should be eliminated in order for politics to remain immoral. Latour comes with a critique of these Socrates suppositions mentioning that currently, science has been immortalized by
The first perspective compatibilism, which suggests that the two are aligned and produce untouchable facts, making it seem that the future is open to you. In contrast to compatibilism is incompatibilism, which suggests that free will and determinism are incompatible and that if one component is true, the other must be false. Compatibilist have a reputation to explain their position in a straightforward way, when that very well is not the matter. Van Inwagen argues against the position of a compatibilist because some facts are not untouchable; that is to say that we only sometimes have the ability to act differently. This is a mystery because it is not concrete and is incalculable.
There are true forms of everything that we think we perceive, but we cannot see those forms. In the allegory of the cave, Plato is trying to make us understand that we see shadows and we think they are the real thing. Thus, the main theme of the allegory is that we are ignorant about the true
Thucydides justice depends on power; strong men will do what they have the power to do, and the weak will accept what they have to accept. Overall, I can conclude that these two philosophers have a different perspective about life and ethics. Consequently, It is true that Plato make normative claims. However, his philosophy was not conclusive since continuously changes were made. It is also true that
According to Chambers (2009) his belief was that the strongest objection to rhetoric is not that appeals to passion over reason, but that it is nomological rather than dialogical (p.324). To further simplify, Plato was not opposed to people expressing themselves passionately but opposed one to illustrate the deliberation process through passion as a form of misguiding or redirected
Perception determines one’s reality; paradoxically reality is not determined by perception. Reality is contingent upon truth and is obscured by one’s perception. To find the truth, one must question the reality of perceptions and the surrounding world. After analyzing The Matrix, Plato’s the Republic (the Allegory of the Cave) and Descartes meditations one can notice multiple similarities as well as differences. The protagonists in all three stories question the reality in which they are living in, weather or not it is real.
Socrates does not make sound arguments because although his premises are logical, they sometimes have nothing to do with the original argument. In Plato’s Euthyphro, the Euthyphro dilemma argument states whether the Gods love the pious because it is pious or it is pious because the Gods love it. In order to support this distinction, Socrates’ first premise in supporting this conclusion is the example of being carried. Socrates claims that there is a difference between something that is already in the state of being carried because it is carried or if something is carried because it is in the state of being carried. Similarly, there is a difference between something being in the state of being loved because it is loved and something being loved
Kant follows that it is impossible that the phenomena exist by themselves, since the empirical reality is validated as real as it is intuited by the subject. Consequently, space and time, being pure forms of sensible intuition, are also conditions attached to the subject who intuits and without these the subject would make it impossible to receive representations. This is how Transcendental Aesthetic is the first stage of knowledge of the subject, and that is directly related to sensory perception of objects of experience. The origin of all our knowledge is in the senses. Space is the way we provide for external representations.