Plato's Speech Within The Symposium And Phaedrus

(1.1.174-176). The oxymoronic enumeration of Romeo’s citing is utilised to express and exaggerate his contradictory perspective of love, which further suggest to readers about Romeo’s love-sickness. As the sympathetic person Benvolio is, he advises Romeo to notice other girls, contrary of what Romeo expected. In this way, Benvolio shows

Book One of Plato’s The Republic includes an argument between two individuals, Socrates and Thrasymachus, where they attempt to define the concept of justice. Thrasymachus states that justice is what is advantageous for the stronger, however, Socrates challenges this belief through pointing out holes in Thrasymachus’s argument. In this paper, I will reconstruct the steps of this argument in order to evaluate the claims of both Socrates and Thrasymachus and demonstrate that, Socrates had a stronger claim than Thrasymachus in regards to justice because of the flawed assumptions Thrasymachus makes in relation to the word “advantageous,” how rulers behave, and how government is implemented. His assumptions not only lack external evidence, but Thrasymachus is unable to be critical of the fact that his assumptions just mimic general understandings of the word “advantageous,” without deeper thought of what the word truly means in this context.

The various ideologies of love mentioned by speakers in Plato’s Symposium portrayed the social and cultural aspect of ancient Greece. In the text, there were series of speeches given by Phaedrus, Pausanias, Eryximachus, Aristophanes, Socrates, and Agathon about the idea of love, specifically the effect and nature of Eros. Within the speakers, Agathon’s speech was exceptional in that his speech shifted the focus of the audience from effect of Eros on people, to the nature and gifts from the Eros. Despite Agathon’s exceptional remarks about Eros, Socrates challenged Agathon’s characterization of Eros through utilization of Socratic Method.

Whereas Plato thought that experiments and reasoning are enough to provide the qualities of an object, Aristotle was in favour of the experience and observation. In logic, Plato was more favoured the use of inductive reasoning, while Aristotle used deductive reasoning. The syllogism, a basic unit of logic of A = B, and B = C, then A = C, was developed by Aristotle. Both regarded that thoughts were far more preferable to senses.

Rhetorical Analysis of David Brook’s “People Like Us” The goal of argumentative writing implies the fact of persuading an audience that an idea is valid, or maybe more valid than somebody else’s. With the idea of making his argument successful, and depending on which topic is being established, the author uses different strategies which Aristoteles defined as “Greek Appeals”. Pathos, the first appeal, generates emotions in the reader, and it may have the power of influencing what he believes. Ethos, or ethical appeals, convince the reader by making him believe in the author’s credibility.

By experiencing the same emotion of audience is sort of ‘cleansing of the soul’ can through communication of emotion in the work of art. Just the soul is superior to the body, so is the rational part of the soul superior to the irrational part. Philosophy is good in itself because it good for what they can bring us, but others are good in themselves. The fact that it is worthwhile without bringing us anything extra means that it is one of the very highest good in soul not that it is useless.

In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle synthesizes an enthralling dissertation that, “the human good proves to be activity of soul in accord with excellence” (1098a 16-17) which requires, “a rational principle” (1098a 7-8). Even though some critics may contend that the human good lies within something other than excellently acting in accordance with reason, the case set forth in Nicomachean Ethics dismisses such detractors as inordinately obstinate in their parochial ideology. To support his conclusion, Aristotle adroitly employs several cogent premises. This paper will explain how Aristotle reaches his conclusion and examine potential flaws in his argument First, I will state each proposition in Aristotle’s argument.

However, they all are different in a sense. Xenophon’s was written by word of mouth but nonetheless he still quoted what he was told, and tried to explain what was going on and almost animate what could’ve been going on. Aristophanes’ was a humorous, sarcastic representation of Socrates. This could’ve easily been mistaken as a negative point of view on him, when in reality it was all pure sarcasm.

This is particularly so since it seems that, according to Aristotle’s philosophy, the good life is reserved for a select few who were fortunate enough to grow up in an environment conducive to their success. This disillusionment probably arises through the differing concepts of ‘good’ between Aristotle’s time and ours. We usually use the term ‘good’ in order to express a moral judgement; for example, ‘respecting your colleagues is good.’ But understood in a more comparative sense Aristotle’s use of the word ‘good’ merely outlines usually accepted facts. Most would agree that it is better to have friends than to be lonely, or to be financially secured than to be

This is particularly clear in the case of Nicias, who is very conscious of his position as someone familiar with Socrates' methods and aims, and quite effectively takes on the 'Socratic role' in the later and more developed arguments in the second main elenchos section of the dialogue, successfully (defecting spirited but ill-directed attacks by Laches). Yet his intellectual self-confidence is not matched by his personal attitude:while recognizing that conversations with Socrates will involve not just answering questions but 'giving an account of how one lives and has lived one's life', (he claims to correct a naive Lysimachus on this point), he goes on to betray his lack of real involvement by describing the process as one he finds 'not pleasant' and one to which he has 'no objection'- an attitude not born out by his later reaction to personal intellectual failure in the final elenchos. Laches, likewise, not only reacts abusively to Nicias' condescending handling of the 'Socrates role', but also displays his own failure to personify endurance in his own behaviour by his rather choleric 'resignations' from the discussion, when the going gets

Of Aristotle’s three rhetorical appeals,the author of ”Individuality vs conformity” uses pathos most effectively to get the reader to relate to her argument. the informational essay “Individuality vs Conformity” focuses on that fact that there is a healthy middle between individuality and conformity .The writer supports their focus by demonstrating that even though “we embrace this warm feeling of acceptance” humans have “This feeling is our need for individuality“ .The author’s purpose is to point out that there is a healthy middle between individuality and conformity in order to do that the author says “but that doesn’t mean we can’t try”. The author writes in a informal logical style for their audience teenagers and others interested in

Women of the Modern world have been viewed in many different lights; women of Early Modern Europe were not viewed in a most positive perspective; however, women across Europe were treated differently. The texts Return of Martin Guerre by Natalie Zemon Davis and Princesse de Clèves by Mme de Lafayette each give insight to the lives of women in the Early Modern Period. Lafayette has a focus on the nobility, following a noble woman trying to navigate love. While Davis tells the story of a woman who is left by a husband, who eventually returns, twice. Each text gives us an interpretation of the life women lived in this period of time; they have differences, as the nobles and commoners did, but share many similarities.