The argument her is that "if virtue can be taught, there must teacher and learner. However, there are neither teacher nor learner. Therefore " virtue cannot be taught". Even though, the result are seems to be contradictory but they are logically right and that is what Socrates prove in this part of the dialogue which take us back to one of his early statement in the whole dialogue when he says" Good stranger, you must think me happy indeed if you think I know weather virtue can be taught or how it comes to be"(Meno. 71c).
The discourse of Socrates and Euthyphro In Euthyphro, Plato recites a conversation Socrates has with Euthyphro by “the Porch of the King” (Plato, 41). The Greek philosopher and his religious interlocutor Euthyphro mainly talk about the true meaning of piety, although it is less of a conversation and more of Socrates challenging Euthyphro, after the latter claimed that he knew everything about religious matters, and therefore piety. Socrates explains his need for Euthyphro to teach him by explaining that this would help him defend himself against the “indictment” he faces because of Meletus (Plato, 45). In the discourse of Socrates and Euthyphro, I find the exchange quite daunting because Socrates does most of the talking and therefore he is inclined to be leading. This brings me to question how a discourse should really be done.
Finally, Socrates claims that the unjust man is ignorant, weak and bad. Socrates argument is effective in the way that he does not shatter Thrasymachus’ argument without reason, he is given many examples that change his way of thinking. Thrasymachus is told to put his ‘set in stone’ ideas under different situations, and once he does, he can clearly see that he should not have been so stubborn, as soon as he does so, he can see that his arguments aren’t suited to all situations. By the end of the argument, Thrasymachus isn’t so much debating the definition of justice, as he is defining the required traits to be a ruler of
Both Plato and Descartes believe in Rationalism, and they also fear uncertainty. These two philosophers want to answer the same basic question, “What is the difference between opinion and certainty” (Palmer 39). Plato believes that all
“Plato’s philosophy is an attempt to justify Socrates’ belief in the objectivity of moral virtues.” As one of Socrates’ most loyal disciples, Plato’s own philosophy was heavily influenced by Socrates’ own thoughts and teachings. Much of Plato’s philosophy is a direct extension of some of the questions Socrates posed, i.e., Socrates asked what justice is, and Plato explored this question in his own writings. It is Socrates’ code of ethics, however, that most closely corresponds with Plato’s ethics. The two philosophers believed strongly in the concept of eudaimonia, which is basic human well-being and goodness (Mastin, 2008). Much of Socrates’ ethics was built around this concept, which led to his ethical code becoming basically objective.
Socrates uses reasoning and logic throughout his trial. I believe that Socrates is innocent because he defends himself truthfully with effect. He uses sound arguments and he is passionate about philosophy. Socrates did nothing to gain in life and did not want a high social standing. Socrates is fair and uses correct methods of arguments by uncovering the
He himself professes to possess precious little knowledge about most things, except of course, for that crucial nugget of negative knowledge.” How awesome is that? Yeah, of course, it’s really simple, and I’m sure you’ve heard it before, but Socrates is great because he knows that he doesn’t know. We so often focus on what the textbook or
This theory is based upon the ideas of philosopher Leibniz and is satirized throughout the book while being met with both skepticism and pessimism. Pangloss himself represents folly. Master Pangloss’ name however, became a word itself in history after the book was published, defined as “a person who is optimistic regardless of the circumstances” (Dictionary.com). It also can be translated as “all-tongue”, which pertains to his love to philosophize.
McGiveron’s critical review of Fahrenheit 451 concerns the symbolic importance of Montag’s hands. McGiveron claims that Montag’s hands are representative of his conscience and Montag only fully controls them when he “has decided to do good”, making them “reflectors of conscience.” His argument is very convincing, but I think Montag’s hands represent more than just his conscience, and, later in the novel, they do not represent conscience at all. Montag’s hands and their seemingly independent actions represent his subconscious mind: his emotions and, sometimes, his moral drives. In the beginning of the book, Montag finds a special pleasure in burning books and defines his hands as those of “some amazing conductor,” (Bradbury 3). McGiveron says
According to Stirling (1999), Hume was also a great philosopher. From an epistemological point of view, he questioned the notions of identity that was personal and argued that that there is nothing as ‘self’ which was permanent and progressive. Hume dismissed the belief of casualty and argued that our concepts of case-effect concerns were based on thinking rather than in causal forces