Plato's Spasis: Summary: Translation Of The Lysis

1803 Words8 Pages
Translation of the Lysis
Lysis is a dialogue of Plato that discusses the nature of friendship. Socrates runs into Ctesippus and Hippothales. These two wanted Socrates to join them for a conversation. Hippothales had a crush on Lysis. The reason Socrates joined them was to show Hippothales how to woo Lysis. What Socrates noticed is that Hippothales is inflating Lysis with too much praise that might make him harder to catch. They all went to the wrestling school. Socrates sat with Lysis and Manexenus to talk. Manexenus is Lysis’s friend and he also was there. Conversation started between them when Socrates started asking Menexenus questions about age, about who is born better and who is actually better. Some kind of rivalry was going on between
…show more content…
Socrates was trying to link happiness and freedom together but Lysis refused to go along. The questioning is somehow dangerous because it might affect Lysis and make him mad at his family if he starts questioning his parents rule over him. Socrates points out that the boy is a total slave to his parents since everyone is controlling him. Socrates convinces Lysis that the only way out of this is through better knowledge and understanding. What is the point of being rich when everybody controls you? The assumption that happiness comes from freedom is not true. Often happiness comes from following someone who has knowledge. For example, when you go to a doctor and he tells you something good about your health; it makes you happy. When you are sick and follow what the doctor says is for your own good. So, happiness comes from doing the right thing. In 211D5 Socrates doesn’t seem to have love for property and those sort of things, but he is passionate about having a good friend. So, we can tell that although he knows many people, he doesn’t have the best kind of friends. Socrates starts questioning Menexenus since he and Lysis are friends and he might be able to answer the…show more content…
Socrates says that the bad can 't be friends with anyone. In the discussion of like befriending like, it has concluded that the bad can’t be friend of anybody because bad is not in harmony with itself and cannot be in harmony with anything else. This is a true belief for the completely bad people since there are bad people who are changeable. For example, there cannot be friendship between a group of robbers because they are stealing and trust might be lacking in that case. When said bad is not in harmony, it means that there’s internal conflict, stability, and changeable characters. For example, there is internal conflict when you know you are doing something bad, so you are unhappy and this will give you lack of stability. For instance, a person is smoking and know smoking is bad for him, but he does not quit and still feel bad about it. Another case is that two bad people cannot be friends and the reason behind this is that they cannot be loyal. Also, stability will be missed in such kind of friendship. If a friends character is not stable, the friendship will be most probably impossible. When we say two bad people cannot be friends; that is when the two people are completely or wholly bad, then those cannot have friends. This has flaws because Socrates stated that any bad thing you do, you will be in the category of bad people. For example, smokers are bad people for some, but two bad smokers doesn 't mean that they are bad
Open Document