Socrates 'Translation Of The Lysis'

When it comes to justice, Polemarchus believes that justice is “…helping friends and harming enemies.”. Socrates questions this point of view because according to Polemarchus’ view point, only the people who are close to him and in his circle of friends would be worthy of any kind of Justice. Polemarchus is wrong in this viewpoint because if only the people that you know who are of your similar social status and you interact with on a day to day basis are considered friends, what of those that you do not know? Or what of those who are not of your social status, that you do not interact with? Socrates questions this by asking, “Do you mean by friends those who seem to be good to an individual, or those who are, even if they don't seem to be, and similar with enemies?”.

Similarly, a good friend goes out of their way to bring good things to their friend; simple words or thoughts do not make a good friend. An individual does good things for themselves or equivalently “for the sake of [their] thinking part” (1166a). This means that an excellent person does what is healthy or beneficial because of internal factors, not superficial or external ones. A good friendship has these attributes; a friend wishes well for their friend because of their own

Plato, p. 46 The argument then leads to the understanding that men with vice realize this painful aspect of justice and are blind to its good impact on the soul. They cannot therefore, be happy. In fact, states Socrates: "…a man who is not brought to justice is more wretched than one who is." Plato, p. 47

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?

Plato would become not only a student, but an advocate for his teachings by involving himself as much as he could. Plato would go on to describe Socrates and his encounters, long after his death. Unfortunately, there were those who denounced his new method of thinking. Many people would formulate several accusations against Socrates and his teachings. These allegations would ultimately result in Socrates’

We all need someone to rely on, someone who can hear us out and get the depth of our despair as well as happiness. So, you know they are not your heartfelt friends when they don’t hear you out. If they just want to be a part of your happy and ecstatic memories, they aren’t genuine friends. It’s important for us to clearly distinguish between acquaintances and friends. Friends aren’t supposed to be admirers, who judge by the cover of the book.

Later Aristotle opened his own school called “The Lyceum”. Aristotle and Plato were great philosophers and still they have tremendous impact on thinkers. Even though Aristotle was a student of Plato’s school , his ideas about theory of forms and poems were different from Plato and he criticized Plato’s ideas. In the paper, I will show the different points that they have the ideas of forms, poetry and the methods they used while arguing their ideas. Plato looked for the answer of the question “What is the real world?”

Friendship can be based on usefulness, pleasure and goodness. Friendship based on utility is that both side are friend for the sake of the use they provide each other. For example, the study mate is the friendship based on utility. The friendship based on pleasure is that both parties are friend for the sake that they provide pleasure for each other. For example, people who only party and drink together.

However, despite the rough circumstances, the two protagonists, George and Lennie find each other through insecurities and imperfections. Rather than fending off problems by themselves, the two protagonists learn the true value of friendship and support one another. As the story develops, both the characters and readers learn the true value of friendship. Although friendship means that one would have to be candid about insecurities, it prevents loneliness and unfortunate bitterness. Throughout the story, friendship is a guarantee that prevents loneliness and bitterness even if it means that one would have to be open about insecurities.

Although this argument suggests the absence of equality produces a better friendship and life, I will defend Aristotle’s view by presenting textual evidence from of Nicomachean Ethics proving otherwise. One of the main themes of Book VII in Nicomachean Ethics is Aristotle’s observations related to friendship, since he deemed life meaningless without it. While doing so, he identified and explained three kinds of friendship; friendships of pleasure, friendships of use, and true friendship. Aristotle states the former two are circumstantial and fleeting, particularly with friendships of pleasure.

Have you ever been around someone that is so judgmental of other you wonder what makes them that way? You know they’re a good person, but maybe they don’t realize how crucial of other’s they are being all the time. Just because someone looks different from you and I, does not mean that they are a bad person or a slob. That person that you were so judgmental about could be the one saving your life one day. Most people I know today don’t really care to be the center of attention.

After analyzing Critos arguments and Socrates response, Socrates decision to stay was the right choice because of his knowledge about what is just and his loyalty to the Laws. Though Crito’s attempt at persuading Socrates to escape to another country was solid, it would not have had a beneficial outcome for Socrates life. It would lead to many negative implications like Socrates being a bad influence for children and youth. Therefore, he would not be able to fulfill Gods command to teach. Overall, the points Socrates makes within his response to Crito shows that escaping Athens is not what would be beneficial for him, his sons and the Laws.

"Common Disobedience" by Henry David Thoreau was a methods for instructing individuals on why they ought not make due with a not as much as immaculate government. On the off chance that individuals against their group or government, a few people may make a development, or few creating nations individuals may bring about insurgency or war, however Thoreau's equity is "noncompliance. " they may endure in the event that they do meddle with the present government.

This is a dialog between Socrates and Euthyphro. Euthyphro is at court ready to charge his father with murdering his own slave. Socrates questions the intensions behind Euthyphro’s actions. It seems impious to go against his father, but it also seems pious to go against evil and wicked actions. At first Euthyphro thinks he knows what piety is and what it means to be holy: he thinks that piety is what the gods like, and impiety is what the gods don’t like.

Euthyphro Dilemma: A dilemma The Euthyphro dilemma consists of a question asked by Socrates in the Euthyphro text, “Are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are will by God?” The problem of these two mindsets create is a running and leading to an unwanted answer, or nothing at all. What may the philosopher may choose or answer with, it may result with their answer proven wrong.