When Socrates says that good people cannot be friends he means that perfect beings or the self sufficient beings cannot be friends, but if we have good character we still have problems and we still have needs, so good human beings will still have friends. What Socrates proposes is that perhaps the friend is simply the good. And it is good for two good people to be friends, but they will not benefit from each other. The problem with the proposition that the good is the friend is same as the problem with like befriending like. The good
An Analysis of the Effectiveness of Arguments in Gorgias In Plato’s Gorgias, Callicles is attempting the explain how to live the best life to Socrates. Callicles says, “…the man who’ll live correctly ought to allow his own appetites to get as large as possible and not to restrain them. And when they are as large as possible, he ought to be competent to devote himself to them…” (492a). However, not all men are able to live this indulgent lifestyle of fulfilling their pleasures; Callicles also says that the weak majority, those who are unable to satisfy their own pleasures because they lack the courage to fulfill their own, praise temperance and justice because they want to “conceal their impotence” (492a). Since they are incompetent at satisfying
He, too, is often at a disadvantage and uses his own wits and control of language to survive in various circumstances. In some ways he follows the principles of an “underdog” with his somewhat depressing current status. The readers are usually “rooting” for Holden due to the given background knowledge of this kid. They are concerned for him and want him to succeed no matter what he does. On the other hand, Holden approaches his representation of a trickster in a more subtle and innocent manner.
Aristotle conceives ethical theories in his time.He divulge the ideas of the goods and morale by studying the nature of arête (“virtue”).Proposing that we humans of the world is oblige to do what is right,do our duties and moral for our humanity . Aristotle search for the good is a search for the highest good and highest good has three characteristic: it is not desirable for the sake of other good and all other good is desirable for sake. ”What we need, is a proper appreciation of the way in which such goods as friendship, pleasure, virtue, honor and wealth fit together as a whole”(Aristotle) He wrote his ethical theories for us to be able to know and to apply it in our daily lives in general understanding in our particular cases.Aristotle set virtue and excellence are required in doing anything.Aristotle was known to two ethical treatise: Eudaimonian Ethics and Nichomachean Ethics. .Both treatise tells the nature of purpose of human morale. Eudemian ethics,came from the word eudaimonia which means happiness,is a fruitful work of Aristotle from Nichomachean Ethics.The greek word eudaimon is composed of two parts:”eu” means “well” and “daimon” means “divinity” or spirit”.To be eudaimon is therefore to be living in a way that is favor with God.But Aristotle regards a mere substitute for eudaimon as “living well”.
These two questions were the main idea of the discussion between Socrates and his friends: Glaucon, Adeimantus, Polemarchus, Cephalus… Socrates asks the question of the definition of justice, each one of the interlocutors answers the question in his own way that, according to Socrates, reflects his own personality. One of the important definitions given was that given by Thrasymachus: he defines justice as the advantage of the stronger. “Now listen, I say that the just is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger. Well why don’t you praise me? But you won’t be willing”.
He condemns societal democracy due to its foremost features such as freedom and equality. Although freedom is of utmost value to Plato, he is of the faith that freedom concocted with such a form of governance may run the risk of chaotic mobocracy. The Republic also credits only certain
Socrates as a wise man understands that if religion forms humans’ personality and views on surrounding, then it means that there is no place for you as a human being. Thus, Socrates tries to argue with Euthyphro to find the definition of goodness and asks Euthyphro questions. Euthyphro gives several definitions of goodness such as prosecuting his own father is an act of goodness, but Socrates quickly responses to him that it is only instance but not the definition. Then, he replies to Socrates that goodness is something that is pleasant to gods. However, Socrates is not satisfied with such definition and responses to Euthyphro that many of conflicts exist among the gods and what is pleasant to one god might be unpleasant to another.
Two key words carried through the essay is a good man. Although the characters have severe personalities it contradicts the ideals of justice that they bring up so much. In general, the story is a conflict of interests. Each person has their own need to say something and in return pushing down another character. They play off this term by looking at the negatives instead of the positives.
Polemarchus’ idea of justice, “By defining a friend as one who both seems and is an honest man: while the man who seems, but is not, and honest man seems a friend, but really is not. And similarly for an enemy” (335a). What Polemarchus is trying to say is that do good for friends and harm for enemies for justice. To go more in depth into what he is saying, Polemarchus believes you must first determine who is your ally to do good by him and also determine who your enemies are thus to do “harm” by him. On receiving this point of view based on Justice Plato went further to decipher Polemarchus’ idea.
Socrates does not make sound arguments because although his premises are logical, they sometimes have nothing to do with the original argument. In Plato’s Euthyphro, the Euthyphro dilemma argument states whether the Gods love the pious because it is pious or it is pious because the Gods love it. In order to support this distinction, Socrates’ first premise in supporting this conclusion is the example of being carried. Socrates claims that there is a difference between something that is already in the state of being carried because it is carried or if something is carried because it is in the state of being carried. Similarly, there is a difference between something being in the state of being loved because it is loved and something being loved