Socrates Rationale

In the Republic by Plato, Socrates attempts to explain the reasoning and parts of the soul. We are first presented with the Principal of Opposites which states that one in the same thing cannot undergo opposites with the respects of the same part, time and then. We are able to use this philosophy to define the rationale (reason) and irrational (appetite) parts of the soul and explain the thought behind human actions where we debate to do or not to do something. Socrates uses this division to demonstrate the thought of engaging in opposite actions within the same period of time. An example to illustrate this phenomenon could be during a hike where an individual is thirsty, but wants to conserve water for the rest of the hike. The debate to

Spirit can be interpreted as anger, shame or other emotions, but the function of the spirit is to work under the command of the rational side of the soul and serve as the emotional side of reason recognizing the whether something is just or unjust. The example provided to us by Plato is the story of Leontius where his appetite or desire makes him want to look at dead bodies while his spirit is clearly disgusted and ashamed of him for these actions. Plato illustrates how the spirit can react differently accordingly to the different desires that the individual will want. A remark that Socrates makes is that appetite will engage in a psychological war with spirit and reason to reach an ultimate decision or action. A daily example, that we can relate to this comparison is the conflict of ditching classes. As scholars, we are bound to go to class and make the best out of school, but once in a while, our appetite will make us want to ditch the early classes, but our spirit will be disgusted and ashamed of ourselves for missing lectures and the important information professors and teachers give out. To put in more detail, the irrational part of the soul, appetite, will make someone miss class because of primal desires such as a comfy bed, cold weather or sleep deprivation, but the opposing spirit makes the individual feel guilty because it serves the rational side of

Aristotle defines the final good to be non-instrumental and self-sufficient; however, for the case of honor, honor is presented to you by other people. While it is nice to be honored by other people, it does not meet the criteria for the final good because it is not self-achieved. In addition, honor that is presented by others has a limit and is used as a tool. Like all tools and things that have limits, there will always be an end to its use. The final good cannot have tails, for it has to be non-instrumental and once achieved cannot be lost. Telos as mentioned above is the ultimate good of something, but contain an end. There will be an end to honor, because honor is not forever preserved and can be lost. Virtue on the other hand becomes a tricky subject, because being virtuous required the presence of other people. Virtue cannot be achieved when one is asleep or stranded on an island alone. In addition, even if one lives virtuously, they are still prone to suffer evils. With this we can conclude that the life of the politician is not the happy life, because living virtuously or with honor does not satisfy the criteria for being