In conclusion, Socrates eventually convinces Glaucon of his vision. Glaucon was flattered, and told manipulative ideas and concepts which ultimately won him over. Glaucon went from saying “unjust” to “most true” in a few paragraphs through said persuasion. Socrates heavily believed in the role philosophers had on the state and was determined to say anything for supporters, sounding like a modern presidential nominee.
In Plato’s, The Republic, Book I, Socrates tries to prove to Thrasymachus “whether just people also live better and are happier than unjust ones” (352d). He argues that everything has a predisposed proficiency at a function, and that this functions are performed well by the peculiar virtue and badly by means of its vice (353a-353d) . The point of this paper is to present Socrates argument and evaluate it to the best of my ability. This argument can be categorized as an inductive generalization. Socrates states that the function of anything is what it alone can do or what it does best.
In Plato’s dialogue Phaedo, he explains the soul and comes to the conclusion that the soul is immortal. Through describing the last hours of Socrates life before his execution, he lays out three arguments in support of the idea that while the body may cease to exist the soul cannot perish. In this paper, I will explicate Socrates three arguments for the immortality of the soul and their objections. Then I will argue on the presupposition of the Law of Conservation of Mass, that the universe, entailing the soul, must be cyclical. The Law of Conservation of Mass
While Socrates is in jail, awaiting his execution (after being convicted for corrupting the youth and not believing in the Athenian gods), his friend Crito visits him in an attempt to convince Socrates to escape. Crito along with some friends and strangers are willing to bribe the right people to facilitate Socrates’ escape from prison; however, Socrates refuses, opting instead to face his fate since he believes escaping would be wrong. As a result, Crito accuses Socrates of being selfish for choosing to die, claiming that he would be robbing his children of a father, putting his friends’ reputations at risk, and choosing the easy way out. The definition of selfish is a person, action, or motive lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly
The passage written by Plato goes in to great detail of how Socrates defends his position and how Glaucon defends his position as well but then leaves the reader to formulate his own opinion. With both Socrates’ position and as well as Glaucons, it is clear to see that Glaucon has the more rational reasoning within the debate of who’s happier, the just or unjust person. In Plato’s writing, The Republic, Glaucon challenge Socrates to describe justice and to give reasoning to why acting justly should be believed to be in anyone's self-interest. Glaucon claims that all goods can be distributed into three classes:
(Modus Ponens) Socrates is like Jesus: both of them did not believe in gods of that time and both were just speaking to society, but in those speeches were hidden the great idea. Like Jesus, Socrates chose to die for his idea, not surrender norms of the society. Both men had their students, who recorded their words during their life or after death. (Analogy) Rejection of civic life in democratic
To be just or to be served an injustice and obey, this is the very basis of the philosophical dialogue between Socrates and Crito. The Crito begins as one of Socrates’ wealthy friends, Crito, offers Socrates a path to freedom—to escape from Athens. Through the ensuing dialogue, Socrates examines, as a man who is bound by principles of justice, whether an unjust verdict should be responded to with injustice. In the dialogue between Socrates and Crito, Socrates outlines his main arguments and principles that prevent him from escaping under such circumstances. Socrates is under guard when Crito visits him, thus the plan to escape.
Socrates should remain in prison after evaluating Critos arguments although Socrates’s were stronger. I’ll begin with Crito’s argument and what makes them strong, and what doesn’t. Next, I’ll focus on Socrates arguments and what makes them good and what makes them weak, mainly his focus that living with a bad soul isn’t worth living when you have a bad soul. Crito gives Socrates three arguments.
On multiple occasions they require clarification or an elaboration from Socrates. It is not just on concepts they are unable understand, but they often disagree with him or require a whole additional metaphor in order to understand the comparison Socrates is attempting to make. In one instance Socrates makes a statement regarding courage in the city and it makes very little sense, so Glaucon informs Socrates that he did “not completely understand what [he] said” and asks if Socrates would “mind repeating it?” (429c). Of course, Socrates furthers the explanation for Glaucon, but it takes an additional thirty-seven lines and a metaphor about dying wool for Glaucon to understand and accept this definition.
Was Socrates right to say he would stay in Athens no matter the consequences, or should he have fled Athens to avoid death? Socrates was right to say he would stay in Athens no matter what because first, he believed he was sent to Athens or “placed in Athens” for a specific reason and he also believed that even though the Athenians found him as a threat and annoying, he believed that it helped them. Socrates was right to say he would stay in Athens no matter what the consequences were because he believed that he was placed or in Athens for a reason. This quote from “The Apology” is an example to prove that he was placed in Athens for a reason. “Because if I tell you that doing that would mean disobeying the god, and so I can’t keep quiet,
Anish Yonjan Philosophy 1301-73426 Prof. Marcos Arandia Feb. 19, 2017 Explain and evaluate Socrates' claim in the Apology that "the unexamined life is not worth living for a human being," and briefly analyze and discuss the particular method he uses to discover the truth (i.e., dialectics or the Socratic Method), using at least two examples from Plato's Euthyphro and/or Apology. Do you agree that a human being cannot live a fully satisfying life if he or she remains ignorant, like the slavish prisoners in Plato's cave? Why or why not? In the Plato’s Apology, Socrates claims that the “unexamined life is not worth living for a human being”.
This is a recorded content going back to around the fourth century B.C. It is fundamentally an exchange recorded by Plato of a discussion between his coach, Socrates, and a man portrayed by Socrates as 'the shrewdest man alive ', Protagoras. The examination rotates for the most part on the most proficient method to characterize uprightness. This discussion happens at the place of Callias, who was facilitating Protagoras while he is in the city. Protagoras was a critic, an instructor of sorts, and was held in high respects by the Greek Philosophers ' general public.
Aristotle, on the other hand, had a much more positive outlook on the applicability of his political theory. In many ways, his ideal ideology would look much like Plato’s, although with a more guided and empirical approach. Aristotle, like Plato, argued that the state was not only necessary, but essential to the happiness of its people, because the state was the only means by which the city could achieve happiness. According to Aristotle, “the best good is apparently something complete” and likewise, that “happiness more than anything else seems complete without qualification” (Nicomachean Ethics, 205) and “everyone aims at living well and at happiness” (Politics, 315). Furthermore, he argued that “happiness is an activity of the soul expressing
Philosophical thinking uses three acts of the mind: understanding, judgement, and reason. In order to have a sound argument all of the concepts must be applied. Socrates didn’t want to please the people by saying or doing what they wanted him to say or do. Socrates thought it was not important to seek wealth or fame; he was concerned with truth and virtue. He wanted to create an impact on humanity by relying on the truth and shining a light in people’s lives, even if they put him on trial.
An insight Socrates offers about the self is that there is a conflict between the soul and the body. The soul, which aspires for goodness and pure knowledge, truth, and courage, is weighed down by the body, which is concerned with the less divine and pure pleasures of the earth. It desires objects of lust, sex, and greed, which are physical. These desires chain down the soul, and prevent it from moving towards ultimate goodness and truth after the death of the physical body. As the soul leaves the body, it moves on to another body.