Socrates Case Study

The world we live in is filled with crime, evil, and injustice, but do people have the desire to do bad things knowing that they are bad, or do they do them thinking that they are good? In this essay, I examine Socrates argument, found in Plato’s Meno, that no one knowingly desires bad things. If Socrates were right, it would mean that it is impossible for someone to perform a bad action based on their desire for that bad thing. Instead, all bad desires result from the ignorance of the person performing the action in falsely believing that the action is good. Though Socrates presents a compelling argument, I argue that it is possible for someone to act badly, all the while knowing that what they desire is bad.

What if every known thing in the world turned out to be misguided? What if people within the world learned ways of life and adapted to environments only to find out that it was all a lie? In "The Allegory of the Cave" from Plato's "The Republic", the same questions were considered and analyzed by Socrates, the speaker of the story. The Philosopher Socrates explicates his allegory of great curiosity to Glaucon, a man of whom Socrates shares his wealth of wisdom with. Socrates' purpose in expressing the allegory is to show how the human race may not always see the truth but rather convince themselves that what they see is the truth.

Good vs. God – Euthyphro’s Dilemma Amber Qi 齐靖琮 2016080415 美619 ABSTRACT Is there an objective goodness, or does god dictate the meaning of goodness? Impiety and corrupting the youth are the two accusations that directly led Socrates to his death. But what is “impiety” and is Socrates guilty of it? Demonstrated in “Euthyphro”, by Plato, before Socrates’s trial, Socrates and Euthyphro engage in a conversation about the definition of “piety” and attempts to uncover the nature of being good and its relationship to the existence of god. Socrates examines Euthyphro’s opinion of being “pious” and challenges Euthyphro to elaborate on his definition, and eventually, confuse and contradict himself.

This essay is about Socrates in the Apology. Socrates was a philosopher, a religious fanatic and a man of reason who lived to questioned why things are the way they are, due to his occupation of questioning and reasoning he was later brought to court on charges of corrupting the young and encouraging people not to believe in godly things that are recognized by the state as said by his accusers. During his trial he said quite a numerous things in the Apology and he was found guilty by the juries and was sentenced to death. So, in this essay I will be explaining why he thinks that death should not be always avoided during his trial on apology. And I will be explaining my position regarding what Socrates has said that we shouldn’t always avoid death.

There’s something to be said about good intentions, but good intentions don’t do anything if your actions are bad. Looking at it Teiresias’s way, it would almost be better if you did it on purpose, because then you would be halfway done with his steps. All you would have to do is “repair the evil.” But it’s not like that. In the courts, motive in a murder is a big factor in deciding your sentence. If it was an accident, the punishment is better than if it was planned.

This applies the sense of wisdom because the individual knows that not following a social ritual would invoke a moral consequence: shame. Once an individual feels a sense of shame, their soul is not in harmony. Thus, they would not be living a good life at that moment. Another point Mencius would make is a social ritual is not merely created because it is the right thing to do. Rather, the reason behind why a social ritual was created makes it right.

This quotation is significant because it represents Socrates’ ideas about death. He believes that fearing the unknown is unreasonable because we don’t know what happens after death. Socrates also believes that “being dead is one of two things” (Socrates 58); either you feel nothing at all or it is a “journey from here to another place” (Socrates 59). Fearing something we don’t now is not going to get us anywhere except limit our potential. Although, death is a frightful concept, it might also be a good thing.

Socrates asks Polus does "then the art of money making free a man from poverty; medicine from disease; and justice from intemperance and injustice." Polus agrees with Socrates 's statement. To prove a point Socrates states that a person who is being healed is being delivered from a greater evil and that is worth enduring the pain in order to get better. He relates this to the fact that it is better to be punished for your injustices because then you are delivering your soul from a greater evil. Socrates concludes that rhetoric is not useful to the person who is not planning to do injustice, he also states that this doing injustice do not need rhetoric, because Polus agreed that being punished for one’s injustice is better for your

Aristotle believes this perception of “the Good” to be unattainable because Plato does not relate it to the physical world thusly it is irrelevant to the ethics of humans, but Plato contorts with the idea that the actions of the man are what distinguish the definition of “the Good”. Based on Plato’s theory, knowledge allows people to use this definition to base their ethics and pursue “the Good” through practice. As in the metaphor of the story, the man who has been exposed to the light feels remorse when he thinks of the people in the cave living their lives among the dark so he returns to them to spread the truth of light. While they seem to be harsh towards his beliefs, the people wish to exile him for speaking things of such a foolish nature. The knowledgeable man understands the disparity

Good luck. Fate. I don’t believe in them and i don’t think anyone should. They are not very good things to believe in. But people like to believe that bad luck can make your life terrible good luck will make your life and fate will make you think good things will come from bad things.