Or would they have to be taught of this, as with other information they can recollect in an experience such as Deja-vu. I ask this because I wonder how Socrates can be so sure about the immortality of the soul. When I experience Deja-vu, I feel like the moment I am remembering comes from the same life that I am currently living, but at an earlier time. It also seems to only be arbitrary events that just seem extremely familiar. How does one know what the difference between what the soul desires and what the body desires?
For Socrates philosophy is a way of live, and we must always ask question to knowledge, which is also its philosophy. His kind of philosophy denies with other philosophers, because they believe only on the pursuit and building of knowledge. Those philosophers want to obtain as much knowledge as possible, while Socrates searches only the truth. Consequently, the main idea between the Apology and the Allegory of the Cave is knowledge. The Allegory is based under effects of knowledge on the human spirit.
Assuming everything exists as it seems, consider how many layers of truth there are. Nietzsche claims philosophy is a product of the philosopher ad greatly reflects their personal morality. This personal philosophy reflects the philosopher 's perceptions and prejudices, which are in turn guided by their experience. Nietzsche is encouraging skepticism of his work as it too is personal and not fact; further, he claims the points he lands on are not necessarily the truest ones, rather they are reflective of what he wants to reveal and conceal. He states, In encouraging skepticism over what he is concealing, Nietzsche is asking the reader to recognize that while his philosophical points have value in themselves, the evaluation of them shows that the mere appearance of their meaning is not it in entirety, that the reader must dissect more and try to find what he is concealing.
Crito did not want to be seen as someone who valued wealth more than valuing the opportunity to bribe the jailer and save Socrates. The most interesting argument is that Crito tells Socrates that it is morally wrong for him to stay and allow himself to be executed. Crito gives three different reasons for this statement. One is that Socrates will be doing what his enemies intended for him to do. Next, Socrates is failing to raise and educate his children if he agrees
On his way to his death some might say he should escape since his trial is unjust. Some might argue, like Socrates, that it isn't right for him to escape and go against his word. His friend Crito is trying to argue the reasons why Socrates is in the right for escaping, while Socrates is arguing the opposite, why his morals will not allow him to do so. Socrates argues many things and makes very firm arguments. If escaping is not just then he should not do it.
“In a word, all that the soul undertakes and endures, if directed by wisdom, ends in happiness, but if directed by ignorance, it ends in the opposite” (Meno 88c). Although Meno and On Free Choice of the Will could not be on further ends of the spectrum, one arguing virtue and the other arguing evil, the arguments within these texts are analogous to each other; both are about the inability to learn a concept. Socrates argues that virtue is not wisdom and cannot be learned; it is a gift from the gods. Augustine argues that evil cannot be learned, as it is a simply a result of one’s lack of good will. Although one argument may not be more correct than the other, Augustine presents the stronger argument.
But since it is impossible to have and exercise them all, because the conditions of human life simply do not allow it, a prince must be shrewd enough to avoid the public disgrace of those vices that would lose him his state” (p 43). Here, Machiavelli again portrays his view of human nature. He emphasizes that since it is impossible, due to human limitations, for one to have all the qualities which we think a ruler should have, one should simply focus on avoiding the bad qualities which will cause him to lose the support of the people. Both of these passages show that Machiavelli believes that most men are not good, and that even the best of man cannot have all the positive qualities which a good ruler should have. Thus, instead of spending time and energy on a quest to change human nature (a quest which does not have guaranteed success), Machiavelli suggest a more simple, direct, and pragmatic solution: A prince should not try to be good, instead he should be cruel when necessary in order to maintain authority, control and peace.
In my opinion when Nietzsche speaks of God being dead, he is stating that the people of his time could no longer believe in a supernatural creator who judges the world. We would use this figure of God to decide our lives for us and that to Nietzsche would be the opposite of living a life of authenticity. Instead we must abandon the idea of a God morality and come up with a human morality, that enable us to be capable of making ethical choices. This God figure had always been the basis for humanity’s ethical beliefs but with a cultural shift into rationalism and science, people have abandoned the idea that a God is the only way for them to determine right from wrong. Nietzsche wanted people of his time to move past the image of an all-knowing
This writer is encouraging his people to stop standing around and to fight back. The writer starts off by saying, “If we must die, let it not be like hogs… If we must die let us nobly die” (Source B). He feels as though if dies while being a part of this, he does not want it “to be like hogs.” This exhibits he wants his death to mean something, and that he died for something. He wants his death to be “noble”, or have died with honor for doing what he believes is morally correct. While fighting, “though far outnumbered let us show us brave”(Source B).
Not only does it give physician, who is still human, too much power and room for human error, it is religiously and morally incorrect, violates the Hippocratic oath, and above devalues the precious gift of life. As stated earlier, treatment is possible and should be looked into instead of giving up. Donating your final moments to research and to help aid in discovering different treatment options, could give a child a chance to live that is diagnosed with the same illness. There will always be pros and cons to this subject but my opinion stands. A person has to right to refuse or accept treatment, but should not be able to take their own lives by assistance of a