He believes that the soul is immortal, and has lived many lives and learned things and has true beliefs, but does not answer the question of how we know if those beliefs are absolutely true or not. Some more questions to argue Socrates theory of recollection would be, how can we determine when our beliefs are true? And what is the possibility that the knowledge we acquire is just collective false truths? How can we determine the difference between a false truth and the absolute
I think adding this premise makes the argument valid and sound. Socrates’ original argument was not valid or sound. The premises were corrected but the argument needed another premise to make the conclusion true. Adding premise two takes away any confusion there was to what immortality meant. Since Socrates’ spent almost the entire book creating a just person and a just city the information about what is good and bad for a soul makes sense.
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. In other words, people allow themselves to believe what they would like to believe. As Socrates speaks, he has a questioning, curious and wise tone towards Glaucon, he speaks as if he does not even know the truth himself. By continuously asking Glaucon questions, Socrates is sparking a somewhat confused and thoughtful reaction. Glaucon himself sounds so deep in thought, he cannot utter more than a "very likely", "I agree", or "very true" to Socrates.
If the opportunity arose, where no consequences were given for someone’s actions, do you think that individual will still commit an unfavorable action such as killing for his own personal need? In “The Ring of Gyges” the disposition of justice is called into question. As humans continue to live we must contemplate the true driving force for our morality. A discussion between Socrates and Glaucon is one main focal point into explaining the differences in how humans truly established their morality. Glaucon believes humans are restrained by consequences and human’s happiness comes from being an unjust person rather than Socrates’ belief of being just truly leads to happiness.
However, Socrates’ goal was not to gather evidence to make it seem as if he was putting all his efforts in saving his life. His goal was to make the court understand his beliefs prove which type of knowledge is worth knowing. When talking about the wise man he examined, Socrates said, “Neither of us actually knows what Beauty and Goodness are, but he thinks he knows, even though he doesn’t; whereas I neither know nor think I know.” This shows that Socrates proved he was more wise than the titled wise man because instead of faking the knowledge, that wasn’t too important, he accepted that he did not know which would result in him then seeking for
A purpose, or even a sensation of purpose is perhaps a necessary element of human existence. The battle to find a purpose is at the heart of much of philosophy, and whole divisions of thought were dedicated to coping with a feeling of meaninglessness, with various degrees of optimism. Some, such as the French author and existentialist philosopher Albert Camus believe “The literal meaning of life is whatever you’re doing that prevents you from killing yourself,” which necessitates embracing an absence of meaning beyond biology. However, some like Paul Tillich believe that one must have the courage to be despite this apparent lack of meaning to live a life without crippling anxiety about our imminent non-existence. One of Tillich’s most famous
Second Argument: P6: Death is the relocation of a person’s soul from here to another place. (stated) Because we are both religious people, we believe this statement to be true as well as the first argument that death is a lack of perception. We believe that religious people’s souls relocate to a better place if they have good deeds in their lives while those who are christians, but have not done good deeds have their souls relocated to a worse place. The difference between the first argument and this one is that those who are not religious are just nothing. P7: Bad people’s souls relocate to Hades whereas good people’s souls relocate to where the Gods are (Heaven) (stated).
Before continuing to argue for substance dualism, it is important to note that the definition of the mind which substance dualism speaks of is separate from the traditional definition and understanding of the mind in modern society, which usually includes the brain. In order to defend substance dualism, one must consider the existence of the soul, because it seems as though it is what substance dualism refers to as the mind. Many philosophers believe in the existence of the soul; it is also mentioned plentifully in Greek mythology as well as in
However, this phrase would only be an unheard cry of the individuals who “desire to live and recapture the honor of their soul” (956). Their plea would be disregarded and ignored because it is easier for society to give in their intellectual ability than live by their virtues. It is easier to live behind an illusion than comprehend they have been living on the chains of ignorance by their own will. When someone exclaims; who is John Galt? In reality that
Some believe it takes away from religious values. " Those who are imbued with the "technological spirit" find with difficulty the calm, the serenity, the inwardness essential for discovering the way that leads to the Son of God made man. They will even go so far as to belittle the Creator and His work, pronoucing human nature a defective product, where the necessary limitations of the human brain and other organs stand in the way of the fulfillment of technological plans and projects. Still less are they fit to understand and rightly es teem those very deep mysteries of life and of the divine economy, such as for example the mystery of Christmas, in which the union of the Eternel Word with human nature brings into play realities and marvels quite other than those of technology. Their thought is along different lines and follows other patterns, under the one-sided influence of that "technological spirit" which only recognizes and reckons real what can be expressed in mathematical formulas - They think that thus they are breaking up reality into its elements, but their knowledge remains on the surface and deals with but one aspect.