In the Consolation of Philosophy, the character Boethius is interrupted from wallowing in his sorrow by Lady Philosophy, who seeks to help him in his hour of need. Driving away the Muses, Lady Philosophy begins her treatment of Boethius by walking Boethius through a series of discussions, leading to conclusions that should comfort him. While Lady Philosophy attempts to show logically that all fortune leads to good in Prose VI of Book IV, she also acknowledges that humans are incapable of fully understanding this and therefore implies that complete comfort in this knowledge is impossible without faith. Through the explanation of Providence and Fate, she attempts to show Boethius that adverse fortune does not exist, but at the same time also gives him several reasons why he will not be able to understand this concept. She makes it clear that man cannot understand the way Providence works all things out for good because people only sees confusion and disorder and they cannot know other’s inward motives and inclinations.
Materialistic desires can be defined as any non-essential item one owns. And lastly, a noble life is a life full of purpose and adherence to said purpose or purposes. Socrates’s argument rests upon two essential premises. One, that truth, self-discovered wisdom, logic, and reason are the most important aspects of life. And secondly, that one should forgo material desires and concern over reputation for the sake of the first premise.
What is the essence of a life well-lived? This question has been asked for millennia, and many have suggested answers. Plato, an ancient Greek philosopher, presented his own hypothesis (at least partially) in a dialogue entitled Meno, in which Plato’s teacher, Socrates, led a disciple of the sophists, Meno, through a discussion of virtue. As an abrupt start of the dialogue, Meno asked, “Can you tell me, Socrates, whether virtue is acquired by teaching or by practice; or if neither by teaching nor by practice, then whether it comes to man by nature, or in what other way?” (Plato 35). While Socrates never answered the former of these questions definitively, by focusing on the latter, Socrates hypothesized that virtue cannot be taught but is learned through divine inspiration and cannot be handed down.
In the case of the noble lie, Socrates values the health and security of the state over truth. He believes without a stable society, pursuing truth is
Under a monarchy, a king lived in a palace in the capital city. Outside the capital city would be little villages whose people paid taxes to the king for protection. They would also have to obey his laws. Kings usually retained their political power for life. After his death he would be succeeded by his eldest son, the prince.
At this point Socrates is already convicted and is given the option to counter his punishment. Instead of begging for his life, Socrates believes that the greatest good of man is to converse about virtue and examine both him and other. In Apology section 29d-30b, Socrates states that he will continue his service to god and he does not plan on stopping his questions. He will meet strangers and question them about their obsession with possessing as much wealth, reputation, and honor while forgoing the truly important things in life, such as wisdom and truth. In this argument, Socrates wants people to stop caring about wealth and the artificial things in life, but rather to focus on body and soul.
Therefore, Socrates would rather abide by the Laws than go against the people and escape. In his eyes, the rule of law is always “just” and citizens should always follow it. Every one of Socrates’ friends disagree with him but ultimately, Socrates decides to listen to himself and goes with what he truly believes to be the “right thing to do”. Based off this logic, citizens should follow laws that are also deemed to be “unjust laws” just because it is a law. Socrates believes that if one isn’t living a “just” life, then there is no reason to be living at all, and that one must never do
Within the greater work, The Trial and Death of Socrates, Plato identifies fault in the current definition and implementation of Justice when his teacher faces punishment for helping Athens. Silencing Socrates will only make Athens suffer, and Justice must derive from reason. The outcome represents the juror’s lack of understanding, or simple overlooking, of absolute Justice as a direct product of the democratic structure. If not a democracy, the Athenian people would fall more in order with their role in the Whole and would ultimately be more successful. Plato argues Socrates prodes at Athenians to help them, and their conviction against him was due to a personal choice, and thus they fail to work together as a perfect society.
In the Republic, Plato gives an argument saying the soul is immortal. In this paper I will present his argument and show that his argument is invalid. I will show why the conclusion is not true and restate the argument to make it valid to help with Socrates’ claim. Plato’s argument on why the soul is immortal: 1. Something can only be destroyed by the thing that is bad for it.
Much of Socrates’ ethics was built around this concept, which led to his ethical code becoming basically objective. Socrates’ ethics were based on something of a knowledge/ignorance dichotomy. He believed that people act immorally but they do not act this way intentionally. Like all animals, Socrates believed that we act in and seek out what is in our best interests. If a person knows what is ‘good’, then their manner of behaviour will always be good, as they possess the knowledge of how to do so.